Talk:Grace Christian School (Alaska)
Latest comment: 16 years ago by David D. in topic This could....
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
unacceptable article, but does not seem to fit speedy--schools can not be speedied as non-notable. DGG (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Can it be speedied as a vanity magnet? David D. (Talk) 05:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Constant Changing
editThere are legitimate changes being made to this page, via request of the Stanly Moderation and Completion Association, stop changing this page. The next person to delete this declares their IQ at 17, and also declare the fact they have never had, or will have female relations. All of your work will also be deleted... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.17.189.153 (talk • contribs)
- Why don't you address the real issues of why your work is being deleted? Your current additions are non encyclopedic. In fact, they would be better suited on a blog if you wish to edit with such a chatty style. Verfiability is also important, while you may have the truth that is useless if not verifiable. Read WP:FIRST and WP:Verifiable to get yourself on the right track. Making edits in retribution to my deletions here will cause you to fall foul of WP:POINT and certainly get you blocked for disrupting wikipedia. However, more mature discussion and attempts by you to make this article more encylcopedic will be welcomed and help your work remain in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 18:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I just itemized the various sentences in the study hall section explaining why they are inappropriate. I'll go through the other sections too if you like, or you can make them more encyclopedic yourself. David D. (Talk) 19:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I just when through the PhaseIII section and removed all the non encyclopedic material. Someone else feel free to go through the Bible section that needs significant editing too. David D. (Talk) 22:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This could....
edit....be a good article if you used sourced material. Why all the trash talking instead? You know full well it will be reverted immediately. Why are you wasting your time? David D. (Talk) 03:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)