Talk:Jefferson Forest High School
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled[edit]
this is about a local high school and i am currently gathering info. on this school. Slamartina (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Edit Protection[edit]
I've extended confirmed this article for a week due to a spate of recent editors working in conjunction to remove reliably-sourced content. Editors with a conflict of interest should be using this article talk page to request changes and updates as opposed to editing the article directly. Despite the flurry of edits, there has been zero discussion here; the protection of the article is intended to encourage discussion to achieve consensus and to end what appears to be an attempt to whitewash content from the article.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm in support of this. I had to immediately block a student. Seriously, if you are attending the school, editing this article is probably a terrible idea. tedder (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- The previously-protected content seems to carry undue weight in this short article. I have removed it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- @ToBeFree: What you removed was blatant vandalism that has been added to the article once the protection expired. Additional vandalism was added to the article today that went undetected. I have reverted to the unvandalised copy of the article and re-protected the page as it's evident that protection is still required.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Ponyo: Oh
I was referring to the content removed in Special:Diff/917423457, which I decided not to reinstate while reverting vandalism. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- The two-sentence 800-bytes of material in a 6200k+ byte article sourced to the Washington Post that you removed with the edit summary "no source, undue weight"? -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- That was unintentionally ambiguous. "No source" only applied to the vandalism; "Undue weight" applied to both. I think that comparing byte counts has only limited applicability, but even if we do so, about half of the "History" section is currently dedicated to two years in 47 years of the school's existence. As Wikipedia is not a news website and recent events do not have higher significance than past events, this feels wrong to me. Solving this problem could probably be done either by expanding the History section so that about 2/47 of it describe the incidents, or removing what appears to be an attempt to discredit the article topic by highlighting the worst thing that can be said about the school. I do not care much about the specific article topic, however, so this is mainly an attempt to justify my removal, not to convince you to redo it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was referring to my confusion over the discrepancy between your first reply and the edit summary you used in reverting, not making an argument for inclusion or exclusion of specific content. I'll leave the content discussion for editors to hash out here; it's not really within the protecting admin's purview.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- That was unintentionally ambiguous. "No source" only applied to the vandalism; "Undue weight" applied to both. I think that comparing byte counts has only limited applicability, but even if we do so, about half of the "History" section is currently dedicated to two years in 47 years of the school's existence. As Wikipedia is not a news website and recent events do not have higher significance than past events, this feels wrong to me. Solving this problem could probably be done either by expanding the History section so that about 2/47 of it describe the incidents, or removing what appears to be an attempt to discredit the article topic by highlighting the worst thing that can be said about the school. I do not care much about the specific article topic, however, so this is mainly an attempt to justify my removal, not to convince you to redo it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- The two-sentence 800-bytes of material in a 6200k+ byte article sourced to the Washington Post that you removed with the edit summary "no source, undue weight"? -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Ponyo: Oh
- @ToBeFree: What you removed was blatant vandalism that has been added to the article once the protection expired. Additional vandalism was added to the article today that went undetected. I have reverted to the unvandalised copy of the article and re-protected the page as it's evident that protection is still required.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- The previously-protected content seems to carry undue weight in this short article. I have removed it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
