User talk:Kitty101423

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to King's College School, Cambridge, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: King's College School, Cambridge was changed by Kitty101423 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2010-11-06T14:03:37+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:DCSF Statutory Notice 30 Oct 09.pdf

Thank you for uploading File:DCSF Statutory Notice 30 Oct 09.pdf. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:DCSF Letter 30 Oct 09.pdf

Thank you for uploading File:DCSF Letter 30 Oct 09.pdf. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King's College School, Cambridge

Kitty, I have tried to find a consensus on this article through discussion on the talk page. I'm open to ideas if you will talk, but as it stands, the article is a mess. If you will, please view articles on other schools and lets see if we can improve this one. The two issues are see are a non-neutral discussion of the protection standards, coupled with the overly detailed description of the 2010 school year. I came to this article by way of the recent changes patrol, and have no connection with the school at all (indeed,I'm not even in the same country). My agenda is solely to keep Wikipedia a neutral and objective encyclopedia. Discussion is the key to that. Seaphoto^Talk 16:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to discuss the changes. How do you suggest that is done? Kitty

Hi, my concerns are:

First, from an encyclopedic view, too much weight is being given to the 2009 inspection. If we can distill that to one paragraph with footnotes it would be more than sufficient. The school has been around for many years, surely it is not defined by the series of events flowing from this incident, and yet the mass of detail gives a large amount of weight to it. In keeping with Wikipedia neutrality we try to give undue weight to any one incident. Of course, it is a balance and we are not here to whitewash an incident either.
Second, there are a lot of subjective observations used in the writings; "worryingly", "surprisingly","staggering" rarely have a place in a dispassionate, neutral article, which is the goal of Wikipedia.
Third, the latter half of the article with it's overly detailed accounting of the 2010 reads like a school newsletter for parents. I am not sure that any of this material belongs in an international encyclopedia. By way of contrast, take a look at King's College School, although the description of sports is arguably too detailed there as well.

I've asked for comment on the talk page from other editors of Wikipedia through a Wikipedia Request for comment, the link for which is off the article's talk page. You are, of course, welcome to join the conversation there and hopefully we can reach a consensus that will improve this article, and break the chain of reverting that is happening now. Seaphoto^Talk 22:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the comments that I have made are so relevant is that the school has tried to "whitewash" the whole series of events. You expect well know fee paying schools to be honest and open with parents (their customers). I won;t go through all the details here, but the school had an emergency unannouced ISI inspection following concerns from parents. The Provost wrote to all parents after it was clear that the inspection failed badly and the school was served with a Statutory Notice. The Provost now admits that his letter to parents was misleading and many parents are naturally very angry about the way in which the school tried to cover up. The Provost of King's College Cambridge will step down as Chair of Governors from 1 April 2011 and resign as Provost later this year. Parents and prospective parents have a right to know what happened at the school. By the way, the school has persistently tried to remove my comments from Wikipedia in its continued attempt to cover up the facts. An emergency inspection and a statutory notice is unheard of in the private education sector. Hope that this helps Kitty

You know, within the above paragraph is a very good start toward a succinct summary of the incident that would be reasonable, If you can remove opinion, dispassionately state the facts, and footnote each of the sentences with a verifiable reference (not need to quote the reference, just provide it so it can be fact checked), you will have something that I think will stand. On the departure of the Provost, if you have a verifiable source for the future resignation you can include that, but if not we should wait until the event happens - as an encyclopedia we should not predict future events (see WP:CRYSTALBALL).

What do you think about this proposed text:

2009 Failed ISI Inspection

In 2009 the school had a rare* emergency unannounced Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) inspection following concerns from parents.* The Provost wrote to all parents that a few deficiencies were found*, but the Times Educational Supplement reported that it was clear the inspection had found issues requiring correction, specifically in the recruitment of staff*, and that the Inspection "described its anti-bullying, child protection and discipline policies as "inadequate in various areas".* The Provost now admits that the letter was misleading and stepped down as Chair of Governors on April 1,2011.*

*Please replace the asterisks with the appropriate verifiable reference.

Let me know your opinion on this. Seaphoto^Talk 18:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not nearly detailed enough. Prospective parents have a right to know what happened in more detail. It is only fair to provide a step by step explanation. The school has refused to be accountable for what went on and the Wikipedia site is a way in which the school is made accountable for its disregard for openeness and honesty. Kitty

But you realize that Wikipedia does not exist to hold anyone accountable, or to redress grievances. Think about it - you are concerned about the school not following the rules, but your are willing to ignore the very heart of Wikipedia, developed over the years through the consensus of thousands of people. Prospective parents can, if they want to, follow the links to read about the incident in as much detail as they wish. As I have stated, I have no connection with the school, and care solely about the integrity of Wikipedia.Seaphoto^Talk 02:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who repeatedly undone your edits, I wish to make it clear that I too have no connection with the School.

If you wish to make this kind of material available in this kind of detail, you are welcome to do so. You should do it on a webpage that you host.

There is no justification in putting this material on wikipedia. ClassicsDoS (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second Seaphoto and ClassicsDoS. These are clearly events that you are close to and feel strongly about. No one wants to prevent you from publishing your perspective with all of its details. Here is not the place to do it, though. I support the wording Seaphoto has proposed above and agree with them that prospective parents are able to follow links for themselves. I also remain open to the proposal of alternative wording provided that that wording is neutral and that it doesn't take up excessive amounts of space in the article (which is my concern with your current preferred form of words). Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the revised wording meets with everyone's approval. I agree that the previous version was too long. Thanks for your helpful contributions. Kitty