Welcome

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 10:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. VulgarMedia.com is a blog and should not be used as a source per wp:elno nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 10:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Publicmoney. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 17:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO

I highly suggest you read up on WP:ELNO and WP:COI. Vulgarmedia.com is a blog, its even hosted with WordPress, even though you may disagree with it. You may find yourself blocked from editing if you keep violating those tenants. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 17:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is unquestionably blog spam; please do not add it again. Continued addition of inapproriate links or edit warring will result in blocks. Kuru (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding verified facts re: school district performance

To "Kuru" and "Nsaum75",

Your opinions are welcome here on wikipedia and you are welcome to contribute. But do not engage in vandalism because you are upset about the subject matter of college readiness in public schools.

Your assertions that all wordpress websites are blogs are absurd. Your opinion does not make websites "blogs" nor does it become spam because the data and opinion in the reference are completely verified. Websites like "People" and "Martha Stewart" are in Wordpress format. Do your homework before you vandalize. An opinion becomes spam when it is not supported by facts. Here the edits are well supported by analysis and facts and numbers in vulgarmedia. There is no policy in Wikipedia to restrict references when the facts are well supported. The only policy is that the content must be verifiable. Here it is verified.

You must discuss your opinions and complaints before deleting references. Your assertions about vulgarmedia are your personal feelings and are not Wikipedia policies.

If You continue to vandalize wikipedia facts and websites that are legitimate and well supported articles, you may be restricted from further contributing. Publicmoney (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this and add your input. Thanks! -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 20:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 05:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are indeed a new user to Wikipedia, you should make yourself familiar with WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:Synth. Kuru and myself are not "vandalising" any pages, but rather maintaining community policy. The current path you are on is not constructive and may very well lead to your being blocked from editing. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 06:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By chance do you have an alternate account on Wikipedia? Or had a prior account? Just curious. -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 09:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confounding TEA statistics with the validity of your blog as a reliable source. i would suggest following the link nsaum gave you above to discuss your addition on the reliable source noticeboard. At this point, it appears to simply be your personal blog where you have self-published your own commentary. This in no way meets WP:RS. You are welcome to explain why you feel this policy does not apply, but future additions of this link would be ill-advised. Kuru (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]