- 1 Dolphin-class submarine
- 2 Help for patrolling
- 3 Happy New Year!
- 4 This week's article for improvement (week 48, 2015)
- 5 This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2015)
- 6 Request for assistance
- 7 This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2015)
- 8 FAC Nomination "Battle of Prokhorovka"
- 9 This week's article for improvement (week 18, 2017)
- 10 The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017
- 11 This week's article for improvement (week 19, 2017)
- 12 This week's article for improvement (week 20, 2017)
- 13 New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
- 14 This week's article for improvement (week 21, 2017)
- 15 This week's article for improvement (week 22, 2017)
Help for patrolling
Hi, I'm Jai98. I need help for reviewing the pages I created recently. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
Happy New Year!
This week's article for improvement (week 48, 2015)
This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2015)
Request for assistance
I'm new to Wikipedia editing so I hope I'm doing this the correct way. I feel like I'm being harassed/attacked by two people with respect to an article where I am trying to make what I consider to be a small addition (a one or two-paragraph sub-heading). The individuals involved don't seem to be interested in reaching consensus; they seem to be interested in shutting me down. They also repeatedly threaten to 'take action' against me for edit warring, whereas I believe that their constant and wholesale reversion of (literally) anything that I write is in itself an edit war.
You have many kudos for diplomacy and whereas I am certainly capable of being diplomatic (and in fact worked as a 'diplomat' in my nation's embassy for a time), I am considerably less so when I feel I'm being threatened. I would be happy to discuss the situation with those involved, but it appears that they have no interest in doing so and that their goal is to 'win'. I've also realized that they know very little about the subject in question - they recite 'facts' as to why their view should prevail, however their 'facts' are wrong. I feel very much put upon and the issue has become rather upsetting.
I do feel that the persons involved have some sort of connections and emotional, or possibly political, involvement with the subject as their reactions (to me) seem entirely out of proportion to issue involved. However I don't like being bullied, which is why I'm not willing to just walk away and say 'never mind'.
Anyway, I hope that you can help me get this straightened out. If you don't have time right now I understand, please try to let me know if that's the case. The reason I'm asking you rather than someone else is that your offer to volunteer was one of most recent (I believe third-newest) so I believe that you are more likely to be available than someone who wrote several years ago, you seem multi-faceted, and you don't appear to have any overt political or philosophical biases (even though I don't feel the instant matter is or should be controversial, the very strong dislike I feel coming from the other parties makes me believe that there's some underlying reason other than disliking the two brief paragraphs I added to the article).
The situation as brief as I can make it: The matter involves a Wikipedia article named "Newton Public Schools". It is about a school district in Newton, Massachusetts, U.S. The schools that comprise the district are state-supported (called 'public schools' in the U.S.; I believe however that term has a different meaning in the U.K).
Most of the article is standard and innocuous; however there is a section at the end called "Controversies" which is the source of the problem. There were three sub-headings to the "Controversies" section; I have been trying to add a fourth; I also made minor changes in one or two of the other sub-headings so that they accurate.
The headings are:
1. Textbook controversy - the issue as to whether supplemental material used by high school students in history courses is inaccurate, biased, or anti-Israel has been an ongoing controversy in the community for several years. It has been the subject of newspaper articles and a "Call for Action" by Jewish, community, and education groups and has been the subject of media reports in several U.S. states and in Israel. (I think there were three or four sentences in this section). Also, in an unusual move, the district removed a widely used supplemental text and also removed items from a list of recommended sources.
2. Superintendent Plagiarism - the district's superintendent was found to have plagiarized a speech he gave during a high school graduation ceremony and was fined. In another district where this happened, the superintendent was forced to resign. (I believe there were two sentences).
3. Violation of State Open Meeting Laws - in connection with the plagiarism, the state Attorney General (government prosecutor) found that the school district and Chair of the School Committee violated state law on eight separate occasions. (I think three sentences).
all of the above, plus the events in the fourth section below occurred within a few months of each other.
4. Last year, the state Department of Education found that the district and Chair of the School Committee had engaged in illegal retaliation against a student whose parent had been involved in the textbook issue. As far as can be ascertained, this is the first time in state history that a standing administrator has been found to have violated education law (in this case, student confidentiality law). A federal investigation is ongoing.
I have just realized that the other editors have deleted a post I made in the 'Talk' section of the article and also deleted the last six months of History for the article. This is beyond outrageous.
This is the last couple of posts (including mine) from the Talk section:
This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2015)
- Hi EyeTruth (talk) I would be glad to assist to getting it to FA. It was a pleasure working with you and others to improve the article when I last assisted. Regards, Irondome (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 18, 2017)
The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 19, 2017)
This week's article for improvement (week 20, 2017)
New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
- Absolutely. There was no point asking for the permission if one doesn't get stuck in. For the next six weeks I will dedicate my time to NPP, although I'm a bit WP jaded at mo. This will be of some productive use of time at least, and avoiding any politics I am finding wearisome. I will aim for a target of 100 article starts analysed. Kudpung please keep an eye out for any errors I may make. Any feedback welcomed. Tutorials and other resources being re-read. Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)