Talk:Pasco eSchool

This article's creator and top editor is a student at the school. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. Is there any way I could fix it? Floating Orb (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Should someone else edit the page to keep the COI equal? Floating Orb (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Migfab008 the edit summary for this edit says "per request". Per who's request and what was the request? If its from an editor with a COI then WP:COIATTRIBUTE applies, and if anything was copied-and-pasted then WP:ERCOPYVIO applies. In either case making a dummy edit to provide a more descriptive edit summary would be appropriate.

Also that edit is not a minor edit. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh. I requested @Migfab008 to edit the page to try to fix the COI. Floating Orb (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Here? I'd say its less than appropriate to privately ask another user to address a COI issue involving your own conflict, requests like that should be kept in the open on the article's talk page, especially since other users have voiced concerns about your editing.

And @Migfab008 its absolutely inappropriate to privately fill a request like that from a COI editor and remove the COI tag while providing the baffling reasoning: "Do not use "a" in short descriptions. This is why your article contains COI. I have removed it now." I'd really like to hear your reasoning, maybe there is something I'm missing here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Usually I cleaned up the entire content by fixing unnecessary grammar because your article sounds confusing to the readers. Migfab008 (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

You said on your talk page, that the reason the COI tag was added was because there was an "a" in the short description, what does that mean? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@Migfab008 we are in the middle of discussing you inappropriately removing the COI tag from this article after taking a private request from a COI editor, and you go and remove the tag mid-discussion. I feel there may be a communication issue here so I'll try to be clear:

• Do not remove the COI tag without first discussing and addressing concerns here, on this talk page.
• Do not fill requests from COI editors made on your talk page, ask that they instead make a proper edit request on an article's talk page. ​

fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

You're right. I was confused. Floating Orb (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

You are not the one who made that comment, and stop petitioning editors on their talk pages to address COI issues which involve your own editing as you've done mid-discussion here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Out of the 71 refs, 31 are directly published by Pasco, this isn't counting how many times the refs are used in the article itself. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 08:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Mint Keyphase! Thanks for letting me know. I made a few adjustments and now there are 67 sources, with only 26 being directly published. That is less than before. Floating Orb (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

More adjustments were made and now there are 70 sources, with only 26 directly published by the school. As of now, only 37% are published by school-related sources than the original 43.6% that you said.

Floating Orb (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Source 44 and 45 are the same thing from posted on different places? Which one to keep? —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 02:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Woah! I didn't think that they were exactly the same. Maybe keep the Yhoo! one since Yhoo! has never been cited in the article. Floating Orb (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Reliable sources should give which one is better to cite. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 02:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. What do you think? Floating Orb (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be tampa bay times to me, yahoo looks like a repost. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 03:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah. I guess you are right. I'll flip it. Floating Orb (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Fixed it. Also, what about the tag you put? Is there less primary sources now than before? Floating Orb (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four wants me to have consensus to add this section back. What do you have to say? Floating Orb (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

What should I change about it? Floating Orb (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

For reference the section in question can be seen here. I don't think a including fresh graduate from a K-12 school is WP:DUE for inclusion and find the Tampa Bay Times article's reporting somewhat tendentious and tedious.

Inviting recent editors to weigh in: @Mint Keyphase @Migfab008 @Magnolia677 fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 05:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

That edit adds a non-notable name to a list that should include only notable names. It's also promotional in tone. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I found a second source that talks about him too. Does that make him more notable? Floating Orb (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, with my objection it would not matter if you found 10 secondary sources, I would still find the information to be undue for inclusion. My objection is not due to a sourcing issue. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

It is secondary. Floating Orb (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I find Tampa Bay Times articles rather overused across the article generally, but I am not sure whether that is a problem, since it is secondary after all. should I raise it on WP:RSN? —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 05:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it isn't that bad. Maybe it is fine unless a problem with it arises. Floating Orb (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I've no issue with the overall reliability of Tampa Bay Times' reporting. Running an entire article about an eighteen year old graduating from a decade and a half year old school is trite coverage to me. Slow news day reporting. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd suspect paid reporting from TBT, but that's just my opinion. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 09:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

No. I am not. Floating Orb (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if I was not clear, but I am referring to Tampa Bay Times, not you. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 02:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh. What? Floating Orb (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying Pasco eSchool is paying Tampa Bay Times to report about them? Floating Orb (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

That's not impossible. Floating Orb (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't really have proof though, so don't take my word. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 07:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose the inclusion, since Jacob Little (the person listed) has yet to display sufficient notability. Maybe if he gets recognition from a venture or a tournament some day, it might warrant this addition. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 04:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to know what to do about the template about the tone. Can someone fix it and should it be discussed?

Send to: @Mint Keyphase @Migfab008 @Magnolia677 @Vegantics @fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four

Floating Orb (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I flagged it due to the exhaustive level of detail given to sections of the article reliant on WP:PRIMARY sources, including tables of faculty and budget changes, activities, and ratings. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I'm sure other editors have their own opinions. Vegantics (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Vegantics summarized it well. Floating Orb, you may want to read WP:MTR. --Magnolia677 (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Could someone fix it at some point? Floating Orb (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Vegantics' reasoning, but the {{overly detailed}} and {{primary sources}} templates are likely more appropriate and descriptive of the issues to editors who aren't familiar with the page's history. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I fixed up the extra detail a little. Floating Orb (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Is it better now?

Send to: @Mint Keyphase @Migfab008 @Magnolia677 @Vegantics @fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four Floating Orb (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

It's still a load of trivial promos. Floating Orb, as a student at the school, and the editor responsible for a whopping 93 percent of edits to this article, are you being paid to edit your school's Wikipedia article? Are you being graded? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

No. Floating Orb (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I made it when I wanted to. Floating Orb (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The school doesn't know about it. Floating Orb (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@Magnolia677? Floating Orb (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@Magnolia. Floating Orb (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Didn't receive the ping, pinging requires a link to a user's page. You can use the {{yo}} template to make pinging easier. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Send to: @Mint Keyphase @Fabvill @Magnolia677 @Vegantics @fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four

Is there anymore I could remove? Floating Orb (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, has anyone directed you to WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI yet? These guidelines from Wikiproject Schools might be of use, especially what not to include. For more concrete examples, I'd argue that the problems and expansion section would qualify as either "short term interest" or "may only be of interest to pupils attending the school". Statistics relating to diversity rankings, enrollment by grades, and the budget breakdown could also be trimmed down or cut entirely. Those are a few points that might merit further discussion, and I'd be open to reviewing the article some more once I have a bit more time. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 22:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

As before, you cannot ping me by copying my signature. In addition to what Volatile said, I'd be inclined to remove the "Proposals" section, merge relevant parts of "In-person opportunities" into "History" and remove the rest, remove "School clubs and activities", and generally merge and reduce other sections across the page. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Let's see what the other editors have to say. Floating Orb (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I strongly support fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four's suggestions as well as Volatile's recommendations. However, I do not have time to provide detailed feedback on this project so please stop pinging me (and do not edit my user page in the future). Vegantics (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

why had I received the ping repeatedly? Is it a bug? —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 04:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd start by looking at any statement which is sourced only to the school's website or another WP:PRIMARY source. If there's something included that WP:SECONDARY sources haven't covered, that might indicate that it's not significant enough to include. This might apply to the school clubs, for instance. Some of the school awards are only sourced to the school's website. Tacyarg (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Floating Orb (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Floating Orb, what's the reasoning behind this edit? What do you mean by solved? If you mean you no longer have a COI, please clarify why. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:40, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Mike Christie. So you don't remove it when the main tag is gone? I've seen that before though. Should it be added back? Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 20:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "main tag"? But I think the important question is did you have a conflict of interest, and do you still have it? And if not, how is it that you no longer have it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The "main tag" is one on the page (as you can see the tag removed because the article was improved). I added back the one on this page because I still have a conflict of interest though overall the page is better. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 21:04, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Adding it back is what I was looking for; I think that has to stay there indefinitely. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:38, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I have restored the COI tag. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Magnolia677, I haven't looked at the article itself to see if it needs cleanup, so I don't know if the tag is justified on the article page -- it may be. I was concerned about the removal of Floating Orb's COI tag which was removed from the talk page with this edit, and which Floating Orb has restored. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I removed the COI tag again on the main page. I only have 76.5% edit count (used to have well over 90%) and it has had a "Controversies" section added plus a full change to the overall wording. If anymore has to be done I don't know what. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 23:34, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Ping: @Magnesium Cube. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 23:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I see that I've been mentioned here (as one of the contributors who helped edit the article in order to reduce the Conflict of Interest issues). I do believe that the issue is resolved, as most wording which had an anti-neutral status has been changed and a Controversies section has been added to counter any potentially biased information. MagnesiumCube (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, @Magnesium Cube what is this thing: in citation 48 www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5668/urlt/16ELA08SRSSpring25.xls it doesn't seem to be a link. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 23:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

It's an XLS file that I found (Florida Department of Education) when searching for Academic performance records. You can open it with any XLS viewer, it details scores for different schools in Florida, including Pasco eSchool. I'm not sure if it is an allowed type of reference, but I put it in anyways. MagnesiumCube (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to self-revert and remove the tag. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright. MagnesiumCube (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 00:33, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I know that because I nominated this article for GA status it should have information that is only useful and not over detailed. The "Administrative misconduct allegations" subsection was removed, but I wonder if it could be added back (with more useful detail to prove its notability). It is a valid case where the principal was kicked out of the school and it got on the news. Ping: @Magnolia677. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 00:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

See WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI and WP:SUSPECT. --Magnolia677 (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Magnolia677, okay. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 19:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The section that talks about the removal of the school could probably come back. I found two sources and it is a part of the school history (which it survived). Is there any reason why it can't come back? Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 00:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Ping: @Magnesium Cube and @Magnolia677. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 00:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what "the removal of the school" is referring to. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Seconding Magnolia677. What does "the removal of the school mean"? MagnesiumCube (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Magnesium Cube and @Magnolia677, read the section. Should it come back? Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 16:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

What "section" do you want us to read? Magnolia677 (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, just thought of how you would see it. It was last present in this edit. I'm not specifically talking about the whole proposals section but I'm not sure. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 17:49, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's large enough to deserve its own section, but it is an important piece of information. It could be added under 'Funding' in the current version. MagnesiumCube (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Magnesium Cube, why funding? Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 21:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

In this source used, it states that the curriculum is expensive (and other minor problems related to budgetary reasons). MagnesiumCube (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay then. @Magnesium Cube that sound's good to me. Should we add it to the section? Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 21:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Yep. If you're going to do it, go ahead, and if you want me to do it, I'd be happy to! MagnesiumCube (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it needs to be in the history section in some way (like making another larger section to put it in). Even putting it in the "controversies" section. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 21:38, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

How about a subsection in history titled 'Closure risk' or 'Shutdown risk'? MagnesiumCube (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, maybe it could be called "Former closure risk" to state that it never happened. Also, the ones in the section of "Expansion" last seen here could maybe be added too, especially the funding related ones to the funding section. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 21:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright. MagnesiumCube (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Magnesium Cube. I added more, you can change anything you would like. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 00:15, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

It seems good! MagnesiumCube (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 01:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Magnesium Cube Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 21:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Magnesium Cube, maybe it could be in funding with the things in this edit. The "expansion" section could have the funding related things put in the spot. Or we could make the history section have some of those back. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 21:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 and @Magnesium Cube I'm talking about the "Almost possible removal" section (should be renamed) and the whole "Proposal" section in total. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 17:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)