Talk:Charter school

Faggotry

recently, User:Goldcity291 made an effort to clean up some of the derpiness of this page. However, the tone of their edit summary suggests butt-frustration, and the edits were subsequently restored. I agree (sortof) with our new friend, that the material doesn't add that much, and seems like the original contributor had a personal war with a personal school he personally disliked. AKA, not much lulz. OTOH, the vandalism beautification attempt actually adds lulz to the article, because it suggests someone actually finds this offensive and wrong.

Plz don't ban. Unless you want this cow to dry up and die.--Paul Atreides 22:59, 2 September 2013 (EDT)

• Next time keep your white knighting faggotry to yourself. That vandalizing faggot is banned for being butthurt and offended by the article. End of story. P.S. if you're offended as well, go here. Ivo Robotnik: SnooPING AS usual I see! 04:07, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

Sorry, I think you misunderstood.

I support your reversion of Goldcity291 (although I'm not convinced the text really belongs in the article). Goldcity's baleetion attempt however makes a case for why the text actually does belong, since it pissed Goldcity off enough they felt motivated to make a new account and baleet it. Its not very lulzy without some evidence of truth behind it, and Goldcity inadvertently lent some credence to that. I'm not offended at all. I agree with Onideus that b& was a mistake, though, because the user was a source of lulz and when lulz are this rare it seems hard to justify b&ing. Though it was probably a throwaway and they probably aren't coming back, ever, because ED is a site full of hateful bigots and meanypants.

anyway, im new so i probably shouldnt be bitching NEway. sory. bye --Paul Atreides 10:13, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

If it belongs anywhere it should be put in Jessica Liao's article and should be reversed/used against her as the edits were a blatant attempt at taking over an existing article and using it as a means of targeting/slandering various people, basically attempting to use ED as a "personal army". People weren't trying to remove the sections because they were buttmad, they were removing the sections because ~they~ recognized what it was...vanity editing and attempts to use the article to rally a personal army.

--Onideus 10:22, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

My apologies for the misunderstanding and mistakes, Paul Atreides. Ivo Robotnik: SnooPING AS usual I see! 20:36, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

We Fucked Up...Severely

The admins...we did...and for that I do apologize. What we ~thought~ were attempts to blank this article were actually attempts to remove overly obvious VANITY EDITING and attempts to use ED as a personal army for this Jessica Liao aspie. This article is in need of a COMPLETE REWRITE! It's not funny, nor lulz/drama inducing AT ALL (nor was it before I removed the vanity edits). --Onideus 04:35, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

• So wait. It wasn't a vandalize? For a minute I thought I caught someone trying to blank it. Ivo Robotnik: SnooPING AS usual I see! 04:40, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

Yeah I thought it was too, I reverted similar edits a couple days ago, but after this recent round I went through and carefully read through the whole thing and it was basically this Jessica Liao's personal vendetta against some particular charter school that labeled her as an aspie or something (which she is). She was basically using the article to try and "get back" at them, by listing personal names, addresses and so forth of the school staff. --Onideus 04:44, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

Well shit, that is what we get for not reading shit, I guess. Atomicnumber27 04:47, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

A lot of times we tend to just go off the edit summary. If it the edit summary had said something about vanity editing or personal armies it likely wouldn't have happened in the first place, but the edit summaries of those making the changes were similar to that of the types who really do blank articles, which I think is how this wound up happening. Like you say though, we ~should~ try and pay a little closer attention to what exactly is being removed and don't jump to any conclusions. --Onideus 04:57, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

The edit summary looks like something a NORP would write. When NORPs try to delete articles/sections, they automatically arouse suspicion. That suspicion may not always be warranted. I'm going to go through the disputed material and see if there's any useful way to retain any of it. Perhaps under Jessica Liao.--Paul Atreides 10:22, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

so after 10 months someone noticed this?
should we add this event to the Jessica Liao article?--milwin 10:44, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

Actually, after looking at the article history Meepsheep actually dumped the vanity edits before, but I guess he wasn't watching the article (or he's now completely MIA), because they just went right back and put them back in and it went unnoticed until now. Not ~too~ surprising given than it's such a boring article subject to begin with. About the only real drama angle is if it covered religious nut jobs attempts to abuse charter schools as a means of trying to get around separation of church and state. Most people probably just looked at the title and though, "Pffft, who gives a fuck about this." (which is actually what I did when I first saw it). And yeah, it could be added to Jessica Liao's article...plus it's kind of lulzy in how she basically wound up with an entire school district permanently labeling her as an aspie because she was so completely socially/mentally retarded. Her "excuse" was that they didn't have the "facilities" and "teachers" to handle her "special needs" which caused her STRESS and that's why she was always spergin out to the point that they had stamped her ass with the aspie label. --Onideus 11:18, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

2013 incident: fact or fiction?

Did the 2013 incident really happen or is it just one of the many lies that ED makes? If it's true, Jessica is really good at manipulating her schoolteachers in believing she was really "special" enough to attend a publicly funded alternative high school. Then when that didn't "work out", she somehow managed to transition to the regular high school. Adingsdrman 17:26, 31 March 2014 (EDT)

Why?

I like the previous version better. Why change to the current one? With the current climate in education, it makes much more sense to keep the previous one. Greenapple679 15:06, 7 August 2014 (EDT)

Merge

This article is stubby enough that we should really merge it in with the school article. Talk | Contribs 13:35, 3 April 2015 (EDT)