User talk:Kitty101423

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to King's College School, Cambridge, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: King's College School, Cambridge was changed by Kitty101423 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2010-11-06T14:03:37+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:DCSF Statutory Notice 30 Oct 09.pdf

Thank you for uploading File:DCSF Statutory Notice 30 Oct 09.pdf. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:DCSF Letter 30 Oct 09.pdf

Thank you for uploading File:DCSF Letter 30 Oct 09.pdf. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King's College School, Cambridge

Kitty, I have tried to find a consensus on this article through discussion on the talk page. I'm open to ideas if you will talk, but as it stands, the article is a mess. If you will, please view articles on other schools and lets see if we can improve this one. The two issues are see are a non-neutral discussion of the protection standards, coupled with the overly detailed description of the 2010 school year. I came to this article by way of the recent changes patrol, and have no connection with the school at all (indeed,I'm not even in the same country). My agenda is solely to keep Wikipedia a neutral and objective encyclopedia. Discussion is the key to that. Seaphoto^Talk 16:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to discuss the changes. How do you suggest that is done? Kitty

Hi, my concerns are:

First, from an encyclopedic view, too much weight is being given to the 2009 inspection. If we can distill that to one paragraph with footnotes it would be more than sufficient. The school has been around for many years, surely it is not defined by the series of events flowing from this incident, and yet the mass of detail gives a large amount of weight to it. In keeping with Wikipedia neutrality we try to give undue weight to any one incident. Of course, it is a balance and we are not here to whitewash an incident either.
Second, there are a lot of subjective observations used in the writings; "worryingly", "surprisingly","staggering" rarely have a place in a dispassionate, neutral article, which is the goal of Wikipedia.
Third, the latter half of the article with it's overly detailed accounting of the 2010 reads like a school newsletter for parents. I am not sure that any of this material belongs in an international encyclopedia. By way of contrast, take a look at King's College School, although the description of sports is arguably too detailed there as well.

I've asked for comment on the talk page from other editors of Wikipedia through a Wikipedia Request for comment, the link for which is off the article's talk page. You are, of course, welcome to join the conversation there and hopefully we can reach a consensus that will improve this article, and break the chain of reverting that is happening now. Seaphoto^Talk 22:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the comments that I have made are so relevant is that the school has tried to "whitewash" the whole series of events. You expect well know fee paying schools to be honest and open with parents (their customers). I won;t go through all the details here, but the school had an emergency unannouced ISI inspection following concerns from parents. The Provost wrote to all parents after it was clear that the inspection failed badly and the school was served with a Statutory Notice. The Provost now admits that his letter to parents was misleading and many parents are naturally very angry about the way in which the school tried to cover up. The Provost of King's College Cambridge will step down as Chair of Governors from 1 April 2011 and resign as Provost later this year. Parents and prospective parents have a right to know what happened at the school. By the way, the school has persistently tried to remove my comments from Wikipedia in its continued attempt to cover up the facts. An emergency inspection and a statutory notice is unheard of in the private education sector. Hope that this helps Kitty

You know, within the above paragraph is a very good start toward a succinct summary of the incident that would be reasonable, If you can remove opinion, dispassionately state the facts, and footnote each of the sentences with a verifiable reference (not need to quote the reference, just provide it so it can be fact checked), you will have something that I think will stand. On the departure of the Provost, if you have a verifiable source for the future resignation you can include that, but if not we should wait until the event happens - as an encyclopedia we should not predict future events (see WP:CRYSTALBALL).

What do you think about this proposed text:

2009 Failed ISI Inspection

In 2009 the school had a rare* emergency unannounced Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI) inspection following concerns from parents.* The Provost wrote to all parents that a few deficiencies were found*, but the Times Educational Supplement reported that it was clear the inspection had found issues requiring correction, specifically in the recruitment of staff*, and that the Inspection "described its anti-bullying, child protection and discipline policies as "inadequate in various areas".* The Provost now admits that the letter was misleading and stepped down as Chair of Governors on April 1,2011.*

*Please replace the asterisks with the appropriate verifiable reference.

Let me know your opinion on this. Seaphoto^Talk 18:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not nearly detailed enough. Prospective parents have a right to know what happened in more detail. It is only fair to provide a step by step explanation. The school has refused to be accountable for what went on and the Wikipedia site is a way in which the school is made accountable for its disregard for openeness and honesty. Kitty

But you realize that Wikipedia does not exist to hold anyone accountable, or to redress grievances. Think about it - you are concerned about the school not following the rules, but your are willing to ignore the very heart of Wikipedia, developed over the years through the consensus of thousands of people. Prospective parents can, if they want to, follow the links to read about the incident in as much detail as they wish. As I have stated, I have no connection with the school, and care solely about the integrity of Wikipedia.Seaphoto ^Talk 02:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who repeatedly undone your edits, I wish to make it clear that I too have no connection with the School.

If you wish to make this kind of material available in this kind of detail, you are welcome to do so. You should do it on a webpage that you host.

There is no justification in putting this material on wikipedia. ClassicsDoS (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second Seaphoto and ClassicsDoS. These are clearly events that you are close to and feel strongly about. No one wants to prevent you from publishing your perspective with all of its details. Here is not the place to do it, though. I support the wording Seaphoto has proposed above and agree with them that prospective parents are able to follow links for themselves. I also remain open to the proposal of alternative wording provided that that wording is neutral and that it doesn't take up excessive amounts of space in the article (which is my concern with your current preferred form of words). Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the revised wording meets with everyone's approval. I agree that the previous version was too long. Thanks for your helpful contributions. Kitty

King's College School, Cambridge

Hi. I have some issues with your recent additions to King's College School, Cambridge. Could we discuss them on the talk page? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've contributed a comment on the TES piece, on their website:

Accommodating boarders with patchy safeguarding arrangements is like driving without seatbelt (or crossing the road with your eyes shut): great in every way, while it works, but apt to suddenly sour seriously.

The school was caught in a bit of a hole, operating in this way - and it conspicuously failed to stop digging. The above contributions highlight the importance of national inspection bodies - and of the press, picking up the inspection reports.

That is, too many of the contributors seem to be forming a ring around that hole - obscuring it from wider view, nudging each other to agree that it's not really a hole, it's not a big hole, it's not deep, it's really quite a dry hole, and anyway what's a couple of kids drowning in a sea of bullying? among 400? in the grand scheme of things? They left, after all, and all's well that ends well.

But no doubt with their lives and hopes reduced to chaos and dross.

And no, Kitty101423 hasn't been vandalising Wikipedia. She's been accepting advice while struggling to achieve the necessary detachment to share a shocking experience which other people need information on.

Some of the phrasing in there echoes that of contributors I'm criticising.

I hope you're happy enough with my (presumptuous?) description ("accepting advice .. information on") of your experience with Wikipedia?

SquisherDa (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

King's College School, Cambridge

Hello. Looking back over the history of the article and the talk page, it seems a number of editors have expressed concerns at the material you are adding to the article King's College School, Cambridge. Before adding the material yet again (which will no doubt be deleted), I would ask that you take some time to read, at least the first paragraphs of, WP:BLP, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. You have probably noticed that the rest of Wikipedia is generally written in a fairly dispassionate way and tends to rely on published sources. However important you feel your information is, those are the standards that are expected of a Wikipedia article. Please do ask at the Village Pump if you are unsure what is suitable. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please take would you explain your changes on the talk page. Simply reverting is extremely unproductive and isn't going to lead to the article containing the information you want. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to King's College School, Cambridge. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Nyttend (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty, if you want to give references, in the Kings College School article, re the Information Commissioner's involvement, I'd suggest the place to mention in the References section (and to cite in the text, of course) is

http://www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resources/decision_notices.aspx
(Case Ref: FS50285876 of 21-Oct-2010, King's College Cambridge)

I think it's possible to add a note to the entry in the References section. If I'm right, you want to mention that the School and College are continuing to oppose efforts to get details of the story into the public domain. Maybe you could even say this is evidently part of a general attempt to conceal where possible - and refer to the efforts by User:Kcsict early in the article's History!

I haven't checked whether the letters the Information Commissioner sends to the parties, when they've dealt with a Complaint, are also on their website. (And I haven't looked for anything relevant on the Independent Schools Inspectorate's site either.)

More generally: as you'll be aware, I agree with you that it's so important to get this story into the article - and you'll see my reasons for this in my 4-June contribution to the Talk page. I'd do more to help more directly (eg by editing references into the article myself!) - but I'm too new / haven't learned how to do these things myself yet.

Another idea, actually, would be to add things to (or even create) other articles . . for example I don't know if there is one on the UK Information Commissioner? or if it says anything about the grey areas around what is / what isn't a "public authority"? And I don't know how much Wikipedia has on Safeguarding of children / vulnerable persons generally - but if people feel the KCS article is carrying too much weight, maybe some of the issues that make your story so important could be tackled head-on in other articles.

As regards the KCS article, I've generally been surprised at how tight the Wikipedia rules are about what can be said in articles (and at how tightly they're applied - I've got a feeling there has been a trend to getting tighter lately). I think a big concern for Wikipedians generally is about possible (mis)use of Wikipedia by companies' marketing operations . . Wikipedia would very quickly cease to be of interest to the public if there weren't pretty tight limits on this!

And of course they've obviously got to be pretty careful about odd / oddball "opinions" - who wants a Wikipedia that is being used as a soapbox by (eg) Holocaust-deniers?!! (And of course the point-of-view rules are important when anyone's contributing, as you are, about a story which has touched them personally.)

My feeling is Wikipedia maybe hasn't yet got the balance right (or at least they haven't yet worked out rules that really say what they want to say), certainly as far as sources / references are concerned. As I understand it at present, in strict theory, if you can cite a reference and say (eg) that Manchester United is a football club, and you can cite another one and say Manchester City is a football club, that does not entitle you to "synthesise" and say that "Manchester United and Manchester City are football clubs"!! (And if you upload a letter you've received - as evidence the sender said what's in it! - you run into rules about "reliable" publishing!) Altogether, there's a hell of a lot of fuss at present about references and sources, and citing them, and as things stand I reckon the baby is badly at risk of being thrown out with the bathwater.

I also think there may be a vicious circle here. I think other people people fussing about references have given you the impression that they somehow think the article shouldn't have anything at all in it about the bullying / safeguarding story . . and when they delete things you put them back .. and this makes them think you plan to ignore the rules . . and it all just keeps getting worse! I'm well aware of you asking for help on the Talk-page - but I'm not sure other people are (though you're beginning to get some from Ka Faraq Gatri) . . you may need to emphasise this!

SquisherDa (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 12:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you respond there. You simply can't put statements such as "Provost wrote a deliberately and highly misleading letter" - not only does that seem to be your opinion (see WP:NOR and our opinions and interpretations have no place in Wikipedia, but it violates a fundamental policy of ours on living people, see WP:BLPN which can get you blocked.

I note something above about photocopies of letters. Software is so sophisticated now that we rarely allow such images as sources, unless they come from an official site. And of course there's the copyright issue, the author of a letter owns the copyright. Dougweller (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent edit warring and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy violations. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]