Talk:Southfield Christian School

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Arxiloxos in topic WP:COI edits

WP:COI edits

edit

It appears an editor here, Cjwebber is employed by the school and has been adding information here. Firstly, if that is the case, you are required to disclose this fact prior to editing this page. Some of the edits have been constructive, some not. I will be reverting all that are not referenced to independent sources and or are of interest primarily locally and apparently mentioned just to serve to publicize the school. I doubt the Free Press is considered an arbiter of what is innovative in education. Also, we do not generally even discuss grad rates, but what is here is referenced to WP:OR and about as WP:PROMO as it gets. It's a small school, and it averages 66 grads a year. Whoopie! If Cjwebber is the same c. webber that is employed by the school, you need to stop editing this page at once, read the section linked in the title, and start requesting and discussing on this page, rather than editing on the article. John from Idegon (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

  • I agree to an extent, and the edit warring should be replaced by discussion, but on the other hand, it has appeared to me that most of this editor's edits have effected factual changes that appear to be consistent with the school's current website, which is a reliable source for uncontentious facts about the school. I also have difficulty with the idea that an article about an unusual teaching approach at the school, published in a major city newspaper, should be peremptorily dismissed: promotional wording ("innovative approach to accessibility") may have needed tweaking but the source and story are worthwhile. We should want our school articles to have more sourced substance like that. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • I can accept that. I have removed the or, corrected the info from nces, added accreditation info and will read the freep article and see what i can do with it. I did not find the motto on the website, but i admittedly didn't look that well. I would not object to it's reintroduction. Additionally, I nominated the logo for deletion on commons as it is there on an improper licence. John from Idegon (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, I think it's at ProQuest, which I don't have, rather than Newspapers.com, which I do. WP:OFFLINE does suggest that the source might be included anyway, under an assumption of good faith, but possibly Cjwebber (or someone else) has a complete copy, or someone could ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Reply