Talk:Holy Cross College (UK)

Info

I hope the information that I have contributed here is useful and that it is set out better than on my first attempt. I will attempt to keep the information as up to date as possible!! I am a current student at Holy Cross and any questions or quieries, comments etc are more than welcome! David2006ABC 15:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Just edited parts of it for coherency; I'm a HC student myself. I hope no-one minds my removal of the individual subject descriptions, but they were hardly comprehensive, and easily found on any prospectus anyhow. Also removed just a little that I thought might not be entirely neutral. Mister Five 00:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Removed Anna Friel from the list of notable alumni. The Anna Friel article says she went somewhere else. 82.69.71.132 (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced Information

Hello OliverFreschini1, I've noticed you have decided to reinstate your edits that I removed regarding the history of this education establishment. I have re-reverted your edits that I assume to be good faith and I will explain why. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be verifiable and cannot contain original research. After a brief analysis of your content it seems to be all original research with no sources cited and therefore must be removed. I encourage you to rewrite information with reliable sources, however if you place your edit back without regard to my comments then this will constitute vandalism, which could result in your account being blocked from editing. Dopespawed (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

OliverFreschini1, you seem to have completely disregarded all of my advice and proceeded to re place your edits on the page. I must therefore at this point assume vandalism. This is the third time I have reverted your edits and I do not particularly want to continue doing so. Either heed my aforementioned advice or stop editing this page or you may be blocked from editing.--Dopespawed (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

OliverFreschini1, despite my continuing notices about your vandalism both here and on your user page you continue to make such edits. This is now the fourth time your edits on this page have been reverted for the aforementioned reasons. As is evident from your past edits you are simply here to vandalise and damage the Wikipedia community, and if you continue to do so you may be blocked from editing. Further, you are straying into the edit war territory here, the result of which is this page becoming locked which would not be constructive to its content. --Dopespawed (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dopespawed. Sorry, this is the first time I have seen these warnings. I have gained the majority of this information from the Holy Cross Sixth Form library with books that only they have. I have also spoken with teachers who did their dissertations on the daughters of the cross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverFreschini1 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This is all well and good OliverFreschini1, and I'm glad you finally found the time to visit the talk page of the article you are so abrasively editing, but telling me that here just is not good enough. Firstly speaking directly to an author of a dissertation as a data collection method would constitute original research and any such information is not valid on Wikipedia. Secondly appropriate books are absolutely fine providing they are referenced with a name, author, publishing date and ISBN code is given.

In regards to your message on my talk page, you may not be intending your edits to be regarded as vandalism but they are indeed vandalism. At first I could assume good faith and revert in accordance with such, but after you continued to make your edits despite the fact they had been reverted (and apparently not bothering to investigate why) they then became vandalism as you can see by reading its entry in Wikipedia policy. You state that you had personally attended the college and personally spoken to the principle, here I would begin to question whether you have a neutral point of view, which with your primary source of the principle of the very college this article is subject I very much doubt you do. Further, you state you are "100% accurate" in the information you provide, well that's good for you but how can anybody else be sure of this when you have used original research? And finally, in line with everything else absolutely none of your content has verifiability hence nobody can consider any of your information to be "100% accurate".

Please examine thoroughly all the links in bold, they are there for your insight and benefit.

Exactly what you need to do is:

1. To revisit the library you mentioned and gain those details from the books for publication here in line with your comments so your edits can be checked and confirmed.

2. To find a hard copy of these dissertations and look up their references in their bibliographies, then visit those references independently and take your data directly from them, inputting those references in line with your edits.

3. To re-write your information in accordance with numbers 1 & 2, ensuring only directly verifiable information is being placed in the article, and to leave out any of the aforementioned original research.

Please do not revert anything on the page until you have fully considered each of these points. If you do so your edits will once again be reverted, and you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I hope you take my advice as I feel this page is currently rather bare and is in desperate need of some verifiable information of which, if correctly placed, yours would indeed help. --Dopespawed (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)