Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:43, 9 January 2010

This user participates in WikiProject Schools.

Archive Pages

• Inception through July, 2008

File:Familyfoundationschool.jpg

Hi. File:Familyfoundationschool.jpg, which you state is your own work, looks to be the same photo that is used on the school's website at . Are you, personally, the photographer who took this photo with your own camera? If you, for example, worked for the school and took the photo in accordance with your official duties, the school, not you, would own the photograph. If you are the copyright holder, could you describe the circumstances by which the school is displaying your photo on their website? Thanks. --B (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The answer to this question may be very important indeed. This user is a major contributor to a rather contentious article about the school.sinneed (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys: In July 2008, I disclosed to the editors on this article here, that "while I have a somewhat more than passing familiarity with the school, I am not an employee. I have however, seen first-hand the positive, long-term impact of the school's program since involvement. This is what prompted me to write the article in the first place." You are correct, that this is the same photo that as it happens, appears on their website. You however, are incorrect in the possible explanation of it's coincidental appearance on both their website and in Wikimedia Commons.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Misplaced Pages users are entitled to a degree of anonymity with respect to their identities - e.g. I do not need to reveal my offline identity. I unfortunately cannot be more specific about the origins of this photograph without revealing more about myself than I am comfortable doing. I will therefore confine myself to saying that the photograph is used as allowed by the license holder, and ask that you take that statement on the assumption of good faith. If you reject that assumption, then it is your right to delete the photograph from the Wikimedia Commons, but you will be doing so under a false premise. In the interest of maintaining my anonymity however, I will not contest the action, should you choose to take it. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 20:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct as I understand it.
And this is one of the reasons one should avoid editing articles too-closely related to one's "real life self". It is easy to damage that anonymity.
Another big reason is that it damages one's ability to keep an NPoV, as some ex-students of FFS show.
I was just concerned about the level of involvement, and seeing the pic mentioned as the same as on the web site made me flinch. If I had spent all that work on a carefully-constructed advertisement I was going to be quite sad.sinneed (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Understood, and no worries. You have not, as you put it, spent a lot of work on "a carefully-constructed advertisement." It's important to have a balanced article and I very much get and support that. That's why I was the one who worked on the congressional testimony and the CAFETY article. Though, I've always been a little confused by the arguably schizophrenic proposition that you should write about what you know about, but don't know too much, or else you risk being biased. It's very hard to balance the two. Thanks for your help. I'll see you on the article's talk page. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 21:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Thus: one of the big objections to Misplaced Pages.--sinneed (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

On the use of this image:

I, the author and uploader of the image Familyfoundationschool.jpg, and known on Misplaced Pages under the pseudonym Wikiwag, hereby state that at this time, I have not granted any entity a waiver to use this image without attribution, as required by the Misplaced Pages Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License, under which this image is made available for reuse. Moreover, as allowed under the non-copyright restrictions afforded me by the terms of said license, as it applies to reusing content outside Wikimedia, I hereby assert the "moral rights" afforded to me under said license, to specifically and forever disallow the use of this work for any derogatory treatment of this work, distortion or mutilation of this work, and/or the derogatory treatment, distortion or mutilation of the Family Foundation School.

File: http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Familyfoundationschool.jpg

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Definition of Moral Rights: wiki.creativecommons.org

Signed: - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 22:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:167.230.38.115

Hi there. Just wanted to bring this user to your attention, as you have given them an absolute final warning over a week ago, and they persist on adding "information" about a suicide event at a school to Family Foundation School that is only supported by one source, and not acknowledged by the media or the institution itself.

Using Huggle, the user was auto-warned for introducing factually incorrect/unreferenced content, and continues to do so. Their edits were reverted twice by me, and they have since performed an undo on my last reversion.

I'll leave this in your hands :)

Chrisch 15:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

... Sorry - after that, I meant User:CoreEpic... I was responding to an IP message at the same time! ... This user has however been blocked, but their controversial edit with only one reference remains, and I've already reverted them twice.

Chrisch 15:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Chrisch. Happy New Year! - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 01:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

MMS idea

One more, you might drop over to the MMS article, and see if you can help the editor there. I learned quite a bit watching that article be disassembled and reassembled. It was really rather amazing. I think the ELs you listed are applicable to both articles. You might talk about it there, and see what that heavily experienced editor says. You might even be able to work there without being bludgeoned by edit warriors. But maybe not.sinneed (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Sinneed. I'll give it a look over and contribute where I feel I can. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 15:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

not so fast!

I stopped entering my edit on the FFS wiki because I saw that it was getting me nowhere, not because I had come to consensus. Given the veracity of the information and given the neutrality of my most recent edit, I strongly believe it my responsibility to make sure that it is included on the page. please re-open the mediation request, if I cant talk reason into the talk page or enter the npov information quietly, then I would like my opportunity to have it mediated. please reopen the mediation CoreEpic (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic

I am satisfied with how the article is being handled by the more experienced editors and admins that have answered the call. Speaking as the person who made the mediation request in the first place, it's my prerogative to withdraw the request if I see fit to do so. As to your request that I reopen it...frankly, considering your personal attacks and the general unruliness with which you've approached your editing relationship with Misplaced Pages and the other editors here (myself included), you are hardly in a position to make such a request of me. If you still want mediation, then you'll have to make the request yourself, and consider being less abusive and more constructive going forward. If you can demonstrate that you are willing to abide by the rules, then you might find your fellow editors more receptive to cooperation (myself included). - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 15:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

COI? POV?

Please allow me to assure you that this was not an edit neutralizing POV.

Let the readers draw their conclusions. Please give a careful read to wp:COI and wp:NPOV and wp:SYNTH and consider your edits carefully. I would give this advice to the other editor (or editors), but have no forum to do so, and I fear it would be pointless: my assumption of good faith is strained.

It is clear that some content simply does not belong in the article (the nastiness in pseudo-english, the hate sites), but I call on you and ask you to edit with great caution. If this request is unwelcome, please accept my apology, and let me know, and I will not post to you directly again.

The article, and the school, are clearly under attack by individuals who appear to have strong opinions about the school. Schools are often hated by some of their students. Clearly, it is being defended by an individual who appears to have strong opinions about the school. I don't. I am not perfect, and my edits may be unhelpful, but I most certainly am neutral.- Sinneed 21:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You may safely answer me here, if you wish, as I am watching the page.- Sinneed 21:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. It gets under my skin that these people have no idea whom they're addressing. For all anyone knows, I could be among the members of The Joint Commission who accredited the school, or the Delaware County Director of Social Services, or the D.A. I will make you a promise that I will be civil and make every attempt to be constructive and despite any alleged bias, to take far more caution toward NPOV than those seeking to commit the proverbial hatchet job. I've demonstrated this at length, and have demonstrated it by my silence these past two weeks.

But, I frankly see no reason why - simply because these same people do not have the courtesy to abide by the rules of the road - it is any less proper for me to edit in retrograde, drawing from the same sources that they themselves present, if for no other reason than they too must exercise caution. That is not a crime. And, to the extent that I may perhaps go to far, I know I can count on you to keep things on an even keel. You won't offend me, because I respect WP and you as an editor; I cannot say the opposition feels likewise.

As is often said in the legal profession: they opened the door. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 21:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• ahem* - entirely in a friendly and cautionary-humor-intended fashion: "If Bobby jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?" - Don't jump, it's a trap. :) - Sinneed 22:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not jumping. Walking the brink perhaps, but not jumping. ;-) - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 22:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I am shocked by reading these things that are being discussed about the article on the Family Foundation School. I do appreciate your interests in the article and keeping it accurate, but I have an issue with saying the "opposers" of the school hate the school. There was congressional testimony of abuse at the family foundation school and a press release from the family school on the suicide there, and if these are not RS, then I do not know what is. I do feel strongly about showing the other side of the school which the other editors on here do not seem to care about but I think its inclusion is important to the article. I really hope that we can all understand that the school's enrollment has decreased significantly since the congressional testimony and they have made statements to the press that alumni were not telling the truth about the abuse.

Maybe FFS has so many things wrong with it that all of the content will not be able to be included in the WIKI article, but I think the main points and abuse allegations from over 50 alumni is really important to include in the article...really important. Thanks for your time reading this and keeping an eye on the validity of the FFS article, but I hope that we all can come to a fair and neutral consensus about this article so that its not just showing what FFS is releasing. With respect, thank you. Flyboi9 (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Flyboi9: I share the sentiment. Though I must confess that over time I have become a proponent of the school, I am by no means above pointing out its flaws. The revelations that have taken place over the past 18 months have been a source of consternation and concern for me, as well. I have gone to great pains to remain as neutral as is reasonable, which is why I will never arbitrarily delete something that it properly sourced, from a reliable source. It was not I that labeled the Truth campaign a hate site. Let us be honest though, when the campaign takes light-hearted road trip banter and pulls quotes out of context as they did with the "Mike Lossicco Chronicles," that strains the limits of credibility and good journalism, and is objectively dishonest. One cannot fight what one seeks to overcome, by employing the practices one is criticizing. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 00:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Focus on content on article talk pages

Here again, you are pursuing predictions about the future, questions about the philosophy of WP. I encourage you to read wp:five pillars with an eye toward what WP is, wp:consensus with an eye toward when content about a subject lends wp:UNDUE weight to one view. Please give a read to wp:BALANCE.

This is a gentle warning. Please do not misunderstand. You are not focusing on content. You are not proposing changes, and explaining the merits of the change in terms of WP guidelines. You are explaining why you don't wp:LIKE the additions and the trend of the article. You are focusing on the posters and their motivations. You are focusing on the school.

Please give a careful read to wp:COI. Our focus here is ENTIRELY the encyclopedia: the presentation of the knowledge we gather and rewrite into our own words from the generally wp:reliable sources available to us.

The purpose of limiting the content of a single article is to keep unrelated junk out... not because of its impact to the subject... but because of its impact on those seeking knowledge about the subject. - Sinneed 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I would appreciate an answer to my question: at what point does the article become less about the subject than the criticism and become WP:Undue? - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 22:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That was my answer to your question.- Sinneed 22:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I must be missing the answer somewhere in the rebuke. - Wikiwag _{(blahblah...)} 13:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)