Talk:Katherine Delmar Burke School

message: Has Burke's received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?  If not, it does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability criterion for having its own article in Wikipedia. —Stepheng3 (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  notability 

message: This page seemed to have been almost erased except the history. There was a lot of good information in the last version. Can someone review that and possibly revert back?
A user did revert it back. Please note that the full copy has been edited by several wikipedia users who asked for further citations that were provided. This is accurate information.
Please do not allow whitewashing and censorship on Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:1543:6F0:F816:8D93 (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  full revision that deleted many sections on January 28, 2022 

message: Edits with reliable info have been censored. I don't trust wikipedia anymore and will likely not contribute any other factual source-based editing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8300:C6D0:10CE:A185:EEA:CEFE (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  censorship 

message: Restoring to an earlier date (you suggest about Feb 8 ) is one possibility. But even as early as mid-January there started to be some COI editing from an IP, and later Burkesschool, intending to scrub the article of all taint, and add a pile of peacock feathers. I've been monitoring the article for a few months, and I remember a few brief points in time where it was good and balanced, in my opinion. Heaven knows I won't be able to find that among the haystack of editing. I even noted a couple rare sources that came up that could actually add something germaine to the subject.
So I'm prepared to go piece by piece, to whip the article back in to shape. Attributed to Michelangelo (and probably Mark Twain, too) is a description of sculpting as taking a block of marble and hacking away all the parts that aren't the sculpture.
I think we all trust the non-involved, seasoned editors who've dipped their fingers into this cauldron. And it would be hard to make any edit that wouldn't be an improvement at this point. So, I think I'll continue to chip away (it's a bit of an interesting disctraction and time-filler for me, actually). But I will not be put out in the least if you or someone else just decides to blow it all up and return to a point in the past. Cheers.   signed, Willondon (talk)  01:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ping. I think that we should take the Feb 8 revision as a starting point (suggested by  here), and chip away at that, as needed, instead of "chipping away" at this (shudder). Could lead to roughly the same result, with much less effort. Now, if there's any due information that was removed because of COI editing, that would be something to investigate and resolve down the line. twsabin 01:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.   signed, Willondon (talk)  01:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. To note for potential future expansion: This is the usual layout for school articles, recommended by WikiProject Shools. twsabin 02:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Oh, my. It was always my opinion that a block on Factsforsure44 (at least right away) was not the wise move. I outlined my thoughts at admin Tol's talk page. But I knew it would come to this eventually. I intend to carry on "playing the puck, not the player", by just focussing on the article edits, and not getting involved in personal drama. I think it behooves the editor  to sit back and reflect that they've taken a number of runs at it, and hit a brick wall at every turn; and then to consult a friend or advisor in "real life" who could provide some insight on why everybody seems to be against them. But that's not our job, though we may have tried.   signed, Willondon (talk)  17:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

text: I'm signing off for now, and can't give a more detailed reply, but please read WP:SCHOOLCRUFT and also read a featured article about a school to see what the structure is supposed to look like. twsabin 17:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking article 

message: I saw that @spinninceres encouraged you to block my edits with @willondon. Please don't. I wrote on his page about how destructive the heavy handed revertions are and the complaints that don't stand up. This is not facile referencing to bullying as I saw in some of your notes. I wonder if you have a conflict of interest? I've already tried to see if @willondon could be kept off me since it's awful to be edited that heavily for reasons I don't trust. The only positive was adding in bad punctuation as upstander is widely used as one word these days.Factsforsure44 (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm signing off for now, and can't give a more detailed reply, but please read WP:SCHOOLCRUFT and also read a featured article about a school to see what the structure is supposed to look like. twsabin 17:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverts 

message: Nope. Not going through this again. This edit  offers two primary sources from Burke's showing reference to a program (Rosetta Lee training), and another primary source to a slide show from the training plan (which doesn't even mention Burke's). All to support complete original research (I'm not even going to link to WP:OR anymore).
This is the same incompetence and failure to listen, reflect and understand that allowed an editor to barrel through the article and talk page with a prolonged, useless torrent of invalid, challenged and reversed edits, along with the mess in cleaning up incompetent talk page refactoring and explaining over and over again (by a multitude of editors) what the problem with the edits was.
Wikipedia is not a free-for-all where the most righteous or prolific person wins. I will be quite assertive in preventing the mess that happened pre- all the blocks and page protections.   signed, Willondon (talk)  22:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Willondon Burke's is mentioned in the Rosetta Lee url. The blog is a primary source from the school, and the Rosetta Lee training is clearly tailored to the school. She's well known as well and credible. 2601:646:C200:1D90:DD75:3E4D:C57D:F7C7 (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is legit and past muster before. Will reverse that change. @willondon  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.31 (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It's spam..  --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nope. Not going through this again.