User talk:Sdytmz4

October 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Edgewater High School. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You've been told multiple times about the quality of the sources you are using and were given specific suggestions for better sources. People don't give you advice to be mean or obstructive. WP:AGF. This is a collaborative project. Listening to other editor's is not optional. If you don't understand, you need to ask. This isn't an almanac. Having the most current figure is of far less importance than having a source that provides the same stats gathered with the same methodology for all schools. I actually have some time now, so if you will kindly leave it alone, I'll update it completely and you can use my update as a model to update the other school articles you watch. John from Idegon (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

(@John from Idegon:) Hi guys, I noticed the issues with the sources last week, and was a bit lost with how it wound up. Sdytmz4 was using a source for the current attendance that was not detailed enough to properly rely upon (no date, and seemed not to have the 2016-17 number in it anyways?). So it was reverted. But then he seemed to switch to use a more valid source (the school district's website), but you undid that too John? Is there some kind of challenge to notability or problem that the district itself is providing the detail? Or is it because it doesn't match well with the demographic data you used? Or you're still in the process of changing it? Or some other explanation? I'm just a reasonably neutral editor who was confused with how this resolved... and as such, I thought if I didn't understand it, Sdytmz4 may not have either, and so this may be the best place to further explain? I'm certainly welcoming of you bringing in some better standardization to pages like this and cleaning up the Edgewater page, and very appreciate of you taking a lot of time to go to the trouble to do that... just confused by this situation, and hope it'll be easy to clear up.

Thanks! JeopardyTempest (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I might ask, JeopardyTempest, if you have a question for me, why are you asking it on a third party's talk page? The enrollment figures have been updated. I don't understand your issue. There's still more to do on the article (and I had forgotten about it, so thanks), but sourcing the stats properly is finished. John from Idegon (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: As I said, thought since it concerned him, and you'd already contacted him here to further discuss the issue, this would be a better place (than the Edgewater page or your talk page) (if you wish to have the discussion at a different place, that's fine).

I'll admit, I definitely did poor, I missed the last couple sentences of your first post here, which does explain your reasoning better. My fault, 100%. That said, I do wonder if you have a policy that supports the editing position that older data with a standardized source is more valid than current data less detailed data from a valid source? With most subjects which I'm involved in some here (sports, building heights, meteorological events) it seems information is updated as it comes in, as long as it's from a trustworthy source, and then we try to standardize the article as we can. Wouldn't seem too off-putting to leave the demographics with the older values. However, I'm also certainly well aware that continual updating of minute changes in facts is a rather poor use of editor's time. But looks like the school underwent a 14% change in the past 3 years!?! That doesn't strike me as insignificant.

In all honesty, while I did go to the high school about 20 years ago, I have no particular vested interest in the article, just wandered over to the page tonight and saw the construction, so that got me looking at the change history... and ended up seeming kind of rough to just toss out Sdytmz4's last reference when he clearly has an interest in seeing valid information on the page, given he went to the trouble to get a better source for it. If that's a standard policy to be that way, so be it, but I'm always one for trying to earnestly support people trying to make useful informational edits, and hate to lose them or hinder work... and as such, I have no interest in causing any trouble with either of you, just wondering.

Cheers, JeopardyTempest (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on the article's talk page, and no, there isn't policy to support it, just as there isn't policy to support the constant updating of sports stats. As a matter of fact, the constant updating of sports stats goes against a pillar policy (WP:NOT). What does support both your example and this is the consensus shown by being the way it's always been done. Varying due to a likely one-off event that caused a growth spurt in this school is silly. Your right, that's a statistically significant change. Don't you think there are better ways to incorporate that in the article than simply dry statistics? Certainly there is a reason. And I'll lay dollars to donuts that the reason is covered somewhere in a journalistic source. And if it's not, what is the point in including numbers that just make our readers scratch their head and say, wow, this place grew like mad? We can't offer up an explanation without a source. John from Idegon (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

April 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Edgewater High School, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi John from Idegon. talk From Sdytmz4 You placed the footnote in the wrong place back in October, which is why you mistakenly believed the updated statistics weren't sourced.

You were warned for blanking content. There was absolutely no reason to remove the demographics section. For the third time now, you've added some sort of a change regarding I believe feeder schools without citing a source. And I did not misplace a source. The info box has a footnote field. That's where I put it. Also, if you'd simply open your eyes, you'd see that citations have a field in them titled "accessdate". Ya think that maybe, just maybe, that might be to enter the date the source was accessed, you know, considering it is named accessdate? And that none of them have today's date? So I guess it's everyone else's fault but yours, eh. You find a source for whatever else you wanted to change. I'll fix the stats. It's obviously way too much to ask of you to look at what's there and replicate it. WP:CIR. John from Idegon (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Orange County, Florida elementary schools for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Orange County, Florida elementary schools is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Orange County, Florida elementary schools until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)