User talk:Nsaum75/Archives/2012/February
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Category:National parks in Oaxaca
Category:National parks in Oaxaca, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. ELEKHHT 00:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Edits concerning website reference
Edits of verfied data and reference
Hi Nsaum75,
Please do not delete material, content, or references based on your personal opinions or outlook. The article cited in Vulgar media is verified data and the website is not a "blog." Your personal unverified opinion that the website is a "blog" does not make it so. There is nothing "bloggy" about verified data found on a website.
Please do not delete references without discussion with the community on the talk page. Publicmoney (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding deletions of reference on "College Readiness" Rankings of school districts
Response to Teitho, Kulu and Nsaum75:
Thank you for your comments. They are always welcome. But you should have done so before deleting verified information from school district pages. However, I’ll answer your comments and “doubts.”
From your comments it is obvious that you do not dispute or challenge the Rankings of the “College Readiness” of school districts by the referenced website. The fact is you cannot honestly do that, because they are fully verified and based on data published by the State of Texas. Rankings of more than 150 school districts calculated by the referenced website are absolutely essential as they provide context, substance, and reference points for comparison of “College Readiness” data by the State of Texas. Your improper deletions of rankings prevented the Wikipedia readers from properly understanding the college readiness statistics of 150 school districts. I hope you recognize this now.
However, you improperly without discussion deleted the valuable undisputed Rankings that provided context to the TEA data because you feel angry about the low rankings. Please be advised that no Wikipedia policy allows this kind of deletion and obstruction based your feelings. That is called vandalism. Do not pose your personal beliefs and interests as Wikipedia policies.
You should have done your homework before making comments about TEA statistics as the information, definition, methodology of the College Readiness data is fully explained by TEA at the end of the cited TEA report. The fact that you are ill-informed about the definitions of terms does not allow you the right to delete verified undisputed rankings. Please educate yourself if you do not understand TEA data or ask.
Your comment about WordPress “websites” being “blogs” is absurd – they are not. Visit the Wordpress.org to educate yourself. Your personal feelings and beliefs about school districts are not relevant here. There is no “advocacy” or “spam” or “promotion” involved in presenting valid rankings provided by a website based on fully verified raw data by TEA. If you delete the rankings of the poorly performing school districts, will you also delete the rankings of the high performing school districts? I don’t think so. That would be bad logic, correct?
I will update the pages with rankings. Please do not delete the rankings based on your personal beliefs about avoiding verified information public school districts.
Thank you. Publicmoney (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Request to discuss deletions
To: Nsaum75 and Kuru:
I am very familiar with Wkikpedia policies, including dispute resolution policy. I offered you my reaaons, and am asking you to reply specifically to my response. Since you cited Wikipedia policies, I am sure you also know that Wikipedia dispute resolution policy requires you to discuss disputes constructively without issuing threats. I ask you to extend courtesy of telling me why you think you deleted fully verifed data of rankings and how a valid fully verified reference becomes "promotion" per Wikipedia policy. It is appropriate to resolve this among ourselves as the Wikipedia dispute resolution policy requires without escalating all the way to Arbitartaion because you refuse to discuss. Let me know if you will abide by the dispute resolution policy. Thanks. Publicmoney (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
edit session at Museo de Arte Popular
Hey, you wouldnt be anywhere near Mexico City on 3 March, would you? We are having a Wikipedia event called an "edit-a-thon" at the Museo de Arte Popular, Mexico City and could sure use experienced hands!Thelmadatter (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)