Talk:City View Charter School

Article issues tag
Was this a mistake?


 * Single source? I see 22.
 * Third-party publications? I see one ref to the school's website, 20 to notable regional paper The Oregonian (I'll go ahead an link those in the refs so there's no question), and one to the Oregon Revised Statutes.
 * Original research? It looks like every single sentence has a ref. Individual fact tags would be better for anything questionable.
 * Cleanup? As a professional copy editor and long-time Wikipedia editor, I see nothing that obviously needs cleaning up, in terms of Wikipedia style or grammar, etc. The article may need copyediting, I tried running my Google toolbar spellchecker over it, but it seems to have broken in the last upgrade.

I have nothing against tagging when an article needs it, but I'd like to hear the rationale for tagging this article. I'll also note that as far as I know, the author of the article, Aboutmovies has no COI with this subject except that he's dedicated to improving articles about the Hillsboro, Oregon area. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd like to know what exactly is the problem. Although a single newspaper was used for much of the article, each article in the newspaper is its own source (different titles, different publication dates, and a variety of authors), as each has a different level of reliability attached. For instance in a single issue of a paper, an article by a Pulitzer Prize winner on a topic they normally write on would usually be considered reliable, but a letter to the editor printed in the op-ed area would not be granted quite the same level. And everything but the school's website is third party, and we can actually use sources such as that, as they are reliable sources concerning themselves. Of course notability needs to be established first, but that should be clear by the newspaper coverage. And as to OR, which item are we talking about? Aboutmovies (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize for that, Lord!!!! I must have been out of my mind. I failed to follow The Oregonian reference scheme. Thanks!!! Hitro   talk  07:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits
The recent edits come across as coming from someone from within the school who has a lot of knowledge about the embezzlement issue. Please note, that if you are affiliated with the school, we have a conflict of interest guideline. Please keep that in mind as you try to minimize the lack of oversight. If she did pass a background check, fine, but please add a reliable source (such as a newspaper). Ditto with the whole "she was supposed to tell us" after her conviction. The rest of the edits appeared fine, but they got caught up with the others. Lastly, please consider using edit summaries. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Resectfully, I think revison of all edits instead of the two that you took issue with was uncalled for. I'm new to this an will post the "background check" source.  However, the terms of probation are in a source you sited.  "Wheeler aslo was required to inform andy creent and future employees in writing of her conviction for first degree theft"  I have reverted back to and removed edit re passing a background check until the I relocated the source. ThanksJumpingin (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess you don't understand the concept of what an edit is on Wikipedia. One edit occurs when you hit save, so even if you make 50 changes before hitting save it is just one edit. So, you had 3 total edits that were reverted (another one by an anonymous IP, which might also be you). And the one that needed to be reverted was the very first edit, and usually the software will not allow you to revert just the early edit, thus the reversion back to the last "stable" version. Plus, you being a new editor (your username is red), not using edit summaries, and in general being a single purpose account since you only have edited this article, raises issues with conflict of interest as I mentioned before, which generally makes us less tolerant of any edits. Most of your editing is related to the embezzlement issue, and these edits tend to be about trying to make the school look better, which comes across as a bit of a problem with our neutral point of view (other changes are more cosmetic word massaging). As in why only expand upon that topic and not say the problems with the founder/executive director and the initial management problems, or any thing negative about the school? When I wrote the article I tried not to get too bogged down in the details of each, thus why some minor details were left out, but it was done uniformly across positive and negative topics, and in general corresponding to the amount of coverage each received in the media. That's what the neutral point of view is all about. Now, throw in the problem that the topic involves a biography of a living person, thus special rules apply to edits concerning living people. Hopefully this helps you understand what is going on here. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City View Charter School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090829165705/http://www.cityviewcharter.org/principal-s-corner to http://www.cityviewcharter.org/principal-s-corner
 * Added tag to http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/338.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)