![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Size_of_English_Wikipedia_broken_down_freaking.png/500px-Size_of_English_Wikipedia_broken_down_freaking.png)
Promo-campaign
Hello, this is Skyelyrics. I appreciate the work you've done for Wikipedia, but would like to ask whether you have truly read all my contributions to Victoria Junior College. Undoing them completely does not solve the problem. I have added many useful citations which were missing originally, and updated the list of notable alumni, for example. This helps users who want to know more updated information about the college. I am not intending to promote the college, and have no reason to. You on the other hand, with no knowledge whatsoever of the school, are not even taking the time to filter which contributions may be promotional and which are not, and are simply hindering efforts to update information. Skyelyrics (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- You make it loud and clear that you have a Conflict of Interest. And I am indeed hindering your effort to turn the article in an advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on independent sources, not an advertising medium. The Banner talk 16:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Reply to: December 2017
I assumed good faith at first, until you completely reverted an entire edit twice in a short period of time. That to me is considered edit warring. The administrator seems to think so, since he approved the page protection. Right now, you don't think it's edit-warring, only because you think you are right in doing so. I quote Wikipedia: "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." I don't shy away from the fact that I was participating in the edit warring too. It takes two hands to clap.
- I'm an extremely busy person who is not gaining anything from editing this page, so I had no time to examine each edit I'd made to see what could be improved.
- Besides, you did not tell me which specific edits were considered promotional etc until yesterday, so I had no way of knowing which parts could be done better.
- Now that you've actually bothered to tell me, I'll consider each change carefully when I actually have time to edit the page again, and I'll list the changes on the talk page.
- I have removed your advertising twice, one month apart. That is by no means an edit war.
- And if you consider each edit carefully, please also consider the rules and regulations, like WP:COI and WP:RS. The school website is by no means an independent source. And yes, I considered WP:AGF but when you replaced all the advertising without any independent source, it was clear that you wehere here yto promote the school. The Banner talk 16:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Reply to: Managing a conflict of interest
- I'm sorry, but if COI is defined as "external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about", then just to clarify, I have no external relationship with the organisation. It is not my organisation and I have no relationship with it. I have graduated some time back and you could say there used to be a relationship, but now there is no more relationship. You may call it a grey area, but it is not immediately justifiable as a conflict of interest.
- Again, I have no motivation to edit the page, and will receive no monetary compensation from this, and I will declare this on the talk page. I only edited because I saw that the page was extremely outdated, and noticed that there was a banner saying that the article lacked sources.
- Information was also skewed, for e.g. under "Performing Arts", only the choir and chorale were mentioned. So, I added information about two other co-curricular activities.
- Yes, I know the sources I cited were substandard. However, that's an improvement from NO sources at all. I have no choice in some cases, because there is a limited amount of information on the net. The edits you reverted to had no citations for the statements made. Do you prefer that to having at least some social media sources stated? At least, until better sources can be found. Furthermore, I never ever cited the school website, which is http://www.vjc.moe.edu.sg/ for your information. [Edit: my bad, it's http://victoriajc.moe.edu.sg/] Skyelyrics (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- Many previous edits were made by students or ex-students, if you've read the talk page. So, are you going to undo all those edits too? I know it doesn't sit well with you, but not all Wiki pages are the same and you can't use the same lenses to view every problem. It's a small school in a small country, so the number of people who understand it enough to edit the page are few and far between. Please address INDIVIDUAL CHANGES rather than the PERSON editing the page.
- Example: I added notable alumni like Jasmine Sim, who has her own Wikipedia page. (I admit there's a problem with lack of citation, but I have one from a news website which I can insert.) Is it promotional to add this piece of information? Nope, it just lets people find out this information more easily, and they may come to the inference that many school alumni went into the arts scene. On its own, it is an objective and verifiable fact. So, why did you revert the edit?
Can you see why I am doubtful that you actually bothered to read the edits?
If you were to revert individual edits, I would be happy for you to let me know why you did so on the article's talk page, so I can improve the wording or the citations. But indiscriminately reverting is not the way to go.
Lastly, I sure hope Wikipedia pays you, because I really can't imagine spending so much time on a thankless job editing pages I know nothing about and have no interest in. Skyelyrics (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
- You sound like a marketeer who got a hammering of the boss. The Banner talk 16:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm actually a med student, but thanks very much for bothering to look at individual edits, this was the kind of constructive improvement I was asking for. When I have time, I'll search for better, neutral sources for the content. Skyelyrics (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Books and Bytes - Issue 25
Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017
- OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
- User Group update
- Global branches update
- Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
- Bytes in brief
Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
New Page Reviewing
![]() |
Hello, The Banner.
AS one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors, |
- Thank you, Insertcleverphrasehere for the invitation but I have to decline. I sincerely disagree with the idea that sources are not mandatory, especially as an excuse to do nothing. I also disagree strongly with advertising and the fallacy called WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (keeping schools because they are schools, irrespective of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:V). I know that will influence my judgement. But thank you for your confidence in me. The Banner talk 11:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, to each his own. I'll point out that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES was overturned a while back by RfC, though some people still try to use it as an argument anyway, sigh. Advertising is actually one of our biggest issues at the moment actually, I and most at NPP share your views. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- To be true, I have a lot of stuff over my head in this time (major surgery coming soon). Maybe you should try to persuade me again in May or so. The Banner talk 12:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Well, to each his own. I'll point out that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES was overturned a while back by RfC, though some people still try to use it as an argument anyway, sigh. Advertising is actually one of our biggest issues at the moment actually, I and most at NPP share your views. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 December 2017
- Special report: Women in Red World Contest wrap-up
- Featured content: Featured content to finish 2017
- In the media: Stolen seagulls, public domain primates and more
- Arbitration report: Last case of 2017: Mister Wiki editors
- Gallery: Wiki loving
- Recent research: French medical articles have "high rate of veracity"
- Technology report: Your wish lists and more Wikimedia tech
- Traffic report: Notable heroes and bad guys
Reply to your comments on my Talk page
Hello! First off, can I check with you whether I'm able to reply you on my own talk page (will you receive notifications)? Or do I always have to post on your own talk page?
Anyway, regarding the press releases, I'm genuinely confused as to why they do not constitute independent sources. They are not press releases by the school, but by the government (Ministry of Education), which oversees all the schools in Singapore. They were prior published, but have since been archived under our National Archives. The speeches likewise are both Singapore Government Press Releases. Are all governmental sources not considered independent? :O
Next, please accept my sincere apologies for the deletion on the article Talk page. I mistakenly thought that once the issue was resolved, it could be deleted especially in preparation for impending clutter on the Talk page. (I don't remember editing anyone's spelling/grammar, but thanks for letting me know in advance as I'll have to intentionally restrain myself from that) Skyelyrics (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- A press release is not suitable as a source as its sheer existence is to promote/bring to the attention something. Therefore it is not neutral. The Banner talk 18:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, okay I see. However, can an exception be made in this case? For the reshuffling of school principals, the press release is the mode of factual information release from the Ministry, informing of the changes. The newspapers also refer to/directly quote the press release. So, I would think that its authority & position as the primary source is the overriding factor here? Skyelyrics (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign off again)
Articles for Creation Reviewing
![]() | |||
Hello, The Banner.
I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. |
Matter of Opinion
I see you disagree with my word choice of Scott Roeder as an advocate, and I certainly disagree with your wording of him as an extremist. In order to ensure that neutrality is maintained on Wikipedia, perhaps we should not use either one of those words, and simply refer to him by his name, Scott Roeder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodmanisamazing (talk • contribs) 16:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- This encyclopedia is based on sources, not on opinions. As the sources call Roeder an extremist, we should do that too. Nothing opinionated in following the sources, but whitewashing against the sources is stating an opinion. The Banner talk 17:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Why not? --NeilN talk to me 18:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Apple Maggot Quarantine Area
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Apple Maggot Quarantine Area. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Medical content generally needs to be based on references that satisfy WP:MEDRS. You restored a bunch of content based on 1) very old refs, 2) primary sources, 3) sources were the person adding them have a COI
Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that you want to protect your own world of thinking. The Banner talk 15:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)