Talk:Year-round school in the United States

message: }} 67.218.119.177 (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2018 

message: I would like to edit this webpage. I have edited many pages before and I would like to edit this one too. As I also know a lot about this subject and understand year round holidays in the us 5.32.62.6 (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done. Format is not "change X to Y". Besides, you are a vandal.Sjö (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2019 

message: This edit had an edit summary saying it was plagiarized information. This is the second time that this particular editor has removed this cited information stating that this quote is plagiarized, but quotes are allowed as long as they are clearly delineated/marked as such and as long as the source is cited, etc. 
So, maybe I am wrong, but here it is: I'd like for the editor who removed the content to exactly state how the following material 
:A 2016 review published by New York City Teachers College Press summarized the research on year-round schools as followsThe effects of year-round calendars on test scores...once thought to be positive...now appear to be neutral at best. Although year-round calendars do increase summer learning, they reduce learning at other times of year, so that the total amount learned over a 12-month period is no greater under a year-round calendar than under a nine-month calendar. [There is also] evidence that year-round calendars make it harder to recruit and retain experienced teachers, make it harder for mothers to work outside the home, and reduce property values. 
is "plagiarized". Reply here. On the article's talk page. I'm willing to be taught. Shearonink (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Shearonink, you are correct; I've restored the removed material.  With quotation marks (or an indented block quote, which serves the same purpose), WP:INTEXT attribution, and a citation, this is clearly not plagiarism. One can argue whether it's WP:FAIRUSE (see WP:NFCCP and "Minimal usage"), but it looks fine to me on that score, as well. Whether the words are sufficiently representative, or relevant, or from an important enough source to merit a quotation of this length, can all be argued on either side. In my opinion, your paragraph was fine as is. The Wiki Ed students have a module that warns about plagiarism more than once, and the student may be going overboard a little here in reaction to that. Pinging User:Shalor (Wiki Ed). Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. Actually it wasn't my paragraph per se, someone else wrote it. This article is on my Watchlist because of ongoing vandalism that occurs from time to time - I saw that the content & sourcing was removed w/the plagiarism edit summary, restored it explaining why, and subsequently it was then removed a second time (with another "plagiarism" edit summary) without any discussion from the other editor on this talk page. I hesitated to restore it a second time because of WP:3RR/edit warring concerns. Shearonink (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits