Talk:Gull Lake High School

message: , please explain to my why it is not notable enough to be included. It meets its due weight among other things, per WP:PRIMARY. It's their official Facebook page. Also, saying 'see the talk page' when you didn't bother to post anything is a bit misleading imho. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF.  redact your insulting and false statement above immediately.  If you expect others to work with you, you need to try to understand how it works.  You don't seem to understand the edit cycle (WP:BRD), you have shown tremendous bad faith by calling me a vandal.  Wikipedia has no deadline.  I do not have to do anything on your time table.  You are required not to edit war, which is what you have been doing.  Until you do, I am not explaining crap to you.  When you have apologized and start to show some understanding of how things are supposed to work here, I will be happy to explain.  You are totally wrong here, and on more than one level.  That is about your edit.  Your behavior is bad enough I could take you to a notice board right now.  I am not going to do that.  i will give you a chance to read the links above, and strike your inappropriate comments.  Talk to you in a while, I hope.   I am going to go have a cup of tea.John from Idegon (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  
* I have not said anything about you as an editor. I have focused purely on content.
* The source provided is a primary source which comes from directly from the school and details the content. I have taken the words and overview of the incident directly from the source, and no original research was done.
* WP:BRD is an essay and I am not required to follow it. Although it is maintained by many editors, its process is entirely voluntary.
* Leaving me a warning and saying things like "I've been here longer than you" or "You are wrong" are not appreciated comments and that is the reason for the revert on my own talk page. 
* I have not once called you a vandal, please link to a diff before demonstrating bad faith against me.
* Telling me to stop edit warring when you yourself reverted to your third revert, as well as telling me to go to the talk when I had already made it before you reverted.
* I have been on Wikipedia for months and I am as entitled to edit it as any other editor. It is a collaborative encylopedia, and neither you, nor Jimmy Wales has any more right to edit it than anybody else.
* I will not apologize for being bold. Tutelary (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

text: What you need to apologize for is calling another editor a vandal.  Listening to people who have more experience than you at something is just wise.  I was more than happy to explain exactly why your edit was problematic, right up to the time you called me a vandal.  I have vandalized nothing.  Neither have you.  You just made a poor edit.  Sorry, but that is the truth. Neither FB nor Twitter are ever going to be a reliable source for anything.  That is not even a discussion.  That is a fact.  The content on both are user-driven, and they will never be acceptable as a source for anything. See WP:RS. As far as it being a primary source for GLHS, on that you are simply mistaken.  The school's website would be a primary source.  But even if it were a primary source, events, achievements, attacks...pretty much anything but simple facts, needs secondary sourcing.  Two reasons.  Encyclopedias are tertiary sources; that is, they are primarily a collection of things that have already been reported in reliable secondary sources.  Second, the existence of coverage in newspapers, etc, is indicative of the importance of the incident.  Even if the Kalamazoo Gazette or the Battle Creek Enquirer covered it, however would not indicate it should be in the article.  Perhaps if the NYT did.  Guidelines for school articles WP:SCH/AG state that information that is primarily of interest to the local community should not be included.  Vandalism happens every day at schools all over the country.  it just isn't important to anyone but the local community, and even then, it won't be much past the end of the next school year.  Do you realistically think that the class of 2047 will spend much time reflecting on the impact of the vandalism that occurred in May 2014? It adds nothing of use to the article, and as you have submitted it, it cannot stand based solely on the references you provided.  Without reasonable references, there isn't anything to discuss here. John from Idegon (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism incident 

message: — Assignment last updated by COMStudiesProfessor (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Mass Communication