Talk:Chandler School

I wanted to create a page pertaining to my son's school becuase I thought it would be fun; it is my first time attempting to create a page on Wikipedia. I tried to frame the page similiar to a page about a nearby all girls school (Westridge). When I initially posted it, I chose a user name with the name of the school in it -- I believe this is why it was flagged as having a possible Conflict of interest. I also failed to list references, and it was flagged for that. I believe I have fixed the errors and left behind some basic facts about the school. I'm not sure what else needs to be done, but according to what I've read this is the first step. KaliGirl (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC) KaliGirl

The current article is fine (after removing some promotional material). Remember, simply because you can attribute a quote to a source doesn't make it a valid piece of information for Wikipedia. Surely the headmaster of the school is going to speak glowingly of the school, but that does not make for a neutral view of the school. Please find reliable sources that are independent of the school itself. (I.e. local new articles and independent reviews of the school, not quotes from the school's website or annual report). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the history section wasn't fine as it was a direct copy of the school website so I have removed it. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 20:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

References

I have added inline citations and believe the page is currently neutral, meant only to be a source for information. Would love to have the warnings removed. KaliGirl (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)KaliGirl

 Done and cleaned-up a little more. – ukexpat (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute

The content dispute between 71.83.180.66 and ukexpat marked by Causa sui has been resolved as per the closed discussion at ukexpat's talk page. Opening the page for normal editing would allow the other concerns about the page to be addressed, although I would like to note that in the history section specifically, there is nothing out of line with the neutrality guidelines, and the school is the best and most reliable source of information on it's own history, especially where it is not making claims about it's own achievements, but merely about things like building construction, changes in location, when heads of school moved on, etc. Other sections do make reference to outside information where possible. Also, copyrightable statements are not in fact being mishandled, again as described in the closed discussion at ukexpat's talk page, as facts are merely being made accessible on wikipedia, and no specifically creative content is being copied in any significant manner. There are no non-neutral statements of any kind, there are many references to third party sources, (and more can be added once the page is unlocked), and I would like to point out WP:ABOUTSELF, regarding the history section again, as merely factual information is being related, and nothing more, nor is it non-neutral, nor is it information that is likely to be anywhere else, as at the time of many occurrences, the school was not widely recognized by the community. The school's recent history is much more widely documented. Markushopkins (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on the lack of response to the points I've made, I'm going to remove the warnings present on the article tomorrow. Addressing the warnings currently at the top of the page, no statements are anything other than neutral, the editor with close ties to the school sourced to the school's history page, as well as outside material where possible, and the school as a source was only used for information where it could be reasonably expected to be accurate, and so sourcing to reliable third parties is only possible where it has already happened. Once this article is totally unlocked, I suspect that it's quality will have a better chance to improve with the addition of other topic areas that can be more easily sourced to third parties than the school's history. Markushopkins (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Markushopkins (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, as you alsos have a COI. ukexpat (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As I am new to wikipedia, I did not realize that being related to the organization I am writing about made me so automatically suspect that even with time given for objections (of which there were none), I could not remove notices on the page. I would appreciate having any instance of potential wrongdoing on my part specifically mentioned to me. I am in fact an employee of Chandler School, and if I had wanted to hide this, could have made a user name that was something other than my real name. I appreciate the pointing out of WP:COI for the purpose of instruction, but do not appreciate its violation in attempting to show my not at all hidden relationship. This is not how editors should be treating new users that are acting in good faith. I left open a period where anyone could have addressed my comments about the page. Instead of doing so, you quote that I must be acting due to COI and revert. Please, either leave the page alone, or help me fix it. Your behavior here has not been helpful in the least. Markushopkins (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's try this again. As I outlined above, all of my statements about this page have been made in good faith. I would be more than happy to have a discussion about any of my points, or the page as a whole. However, barring that, since I sincerely hold the belief that the concerns about the page have been addressed, I will once again remove the warnings, this time on Friday, unless any other concerns are raised. Thank you. Markushopkins (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Markushopkins (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but we need more references from outside Chandler and its publications; and your COI is still relevant here. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to get really tired of you guys only stepping into the conversation after a change gets made, without any actual reference to the quality of the content and where exactly these references are supposed to come from when the school's earlier history is not a widely reported on thing. I've followed the guidelines of WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:COI to the letter, so if you can't give me an example of any specific problems, then you are not being helpful, but rather making the article look worse than it is. The article is not very long, and out of 7 numbered references, only 2 are from the school. Please, for goodness sake, tell me something more specific than "you need more _____" without where or why or any ability to cite some rule that I am in fact not following. Furthermore, if the correct procedure is to discuss changes in this talk page, why aren't you? I'm giving a chance for discussion, and I'm giving a chance for you to tell me what specifically is wrong with my edits, but no one is doing so. Since no one responds to me unless I make an actual change on the page, I'm going to do so in order to get your attention so that you'll either a) respond to me, or b) decide that I'm the only one making any specific points, and drop it. I'm not going to wait several days just to have you revert once I've given people a chance to pay attention. BTW, did you see the article about how wikipedia doesn't have enough users because it is too hard to actually contribute to articles, both technically and bureaucratically (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=138983240)? I'm starting to see why. I've been a user for less than a week, made no bad edits that anyone is willing to point to specifically, and yet I keep getting reverted. Tell me what I'm doing wrong, and why you think I'm not sourcing enough from the outside when I'm talking mostly about construction of buildings (things that did not get news coverage in the 70s) and then I will listen... Markushopkins (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd furthermore like to point out that despite ukexpat's claim, I have continuously asked how information published by Chandler School about its history that has been relayed here in the most bare factual terms is not reliable when both WP:SOURCES and WP:ABOUTSELF fall under WP:VERIFY, and I am in fact following all 5 guidelines under WP:ABOUTSELF as regards content that cannot be verified outside of Chandler School. Please - and I'm asking this honestly - either give me something constructive, find cites I couldn't find and add them, or leave the page alone. Thanks... Markushopkins (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

List of where graduates are accepted

I've twice removed this list as being trivia content bordering on protional advert material for the school, as well as the content going against WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#WNTI which lists "What not to include ... Lists of colleges and universities that have accepted students from the school" While the list being removed are technically not colleges and universities, it's clear that the addition goes against the spirit if not the wording of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines.

I'm beginning a discussion on the content here so that others can also look at the material and comment on it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Such information has no place in an encyclopedia. It's just there for bragging rights. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor error in headmasters' tenures

Deleted by original contributor. Info likely was in error.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.98.179 (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)