Talk:Lord Grey School

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.lordgrey.org.uk. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 18:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Re see also

I've restored the entry in the "See also" section, as it deals with a teacher who received media coverage for actions that were directly related to this school. Drj0710, I fail to see how this is "not relevant", as your edit summary put it. Would you mind explaining your rationale? /wiae /tlk 13:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I know the school have worked extremely hard to improve the their reputation since the dismissal of te reference to this headteacher and keeping this piece of information I feel could have a negative and detrimental impact on the school, the staff and the parents ..I don't think this piece of information is relevant anymore. I don't claim to know about your rules but and cannot understand why you are so keen to have it on there. Dean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drj0710 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, in this case, the see also refers to a former teacher/headteacher who was in the news (see e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7927095/Head-teacher-used-school-funds-for-Australia-trip-DIY-and-pink-champagne.html, http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/8346408.Former_deputy_headteacher_banned/ and http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/head-sacked-but-she-s-set-to-appeal-1-857602) for actions directly related to the school. That seems like the textbook definition of "relevance" to me. /wiae /tlk 17:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Drj0710: By the way, do you have any connection with the school? If so, you would have what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest. It's usually not a great idea to edit an article when you have a conflict of interest, since such editors generally find it very difficult to write neutrally and dispassionately about the subject. (Indeed, some of the information that's been added to the article—especially in the "History" section—looks like it could be there to promote the school.) Thanks, /wiae /tlk 18:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Despina Pavlou. I think this should be a section in the school article, but not enough to support an individual article. I came to this because the See also was removed again today, without explanation. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)