Talk:Loyola Jesuit College

Fair use rationale for Image:LJC logo.gif
Image:LJC logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Documents
http://www.loyolajesuit.org/entrance2011/advert.pdf http://www.loyolajesuit.org/THISDAY_Publication.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Loyola Jesuit College. 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/20080910185309/http://www.loyolajesuit.org/News/News71.pdf to http://www.loyolajesuit.org/News/News71.pdf

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) 01:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Loyola Jesuit College. 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 tag to http://www.nasarawastate.org/newsday/news/nasarawa/11220110025.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111030143451/http://www.loyolajesuit.org/entrance2011/advert.pdf to http://www.loyolajesuit.org/entrance2011/advert.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=35720

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) 11:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Loyola Jesuit College. 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/20090628032804/http://www.loyolajesuit.org/Welcome.htm to http://www.loyolajesuit.org/Welcome.htm

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) 19:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Advertising and COI
I have tagged this article as both advertising and Conflict of Interest. Hypernerd387 is now forumhopping and editwarring to get the promotional version of this article. But from this discussion it is loud and clear that he(?) has a clear intent to promote to get more prospective students in. And that is probably why he is also giving undue weight to the WEAC and the JAMB examinations and the Cowbell mathematics Competition by adding it two times to the article. The Banner talk 03:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It was added the second time by another editor or a bot. An administrator has confirmed that every information here is objective but The Banner is so egoistical that he does not realize when to back down. The Administrator has the final word, and know the rules and guidelines of wikipedia more than you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernerd387 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it was moved by me to the bottom but one Hypernerd387 did not read properly and just banged it in again. And it does not help at all that you are forumshopping, editwarring and throwing with personal attacks. See No Personal Attacks. To disappoint you, it are not the administrators that have the last word. Wikipedia is build on consensus not shouting and editwarring. Personal attacks, like unjust reporting of vandalism or calling an editor "egoistical", can lead to a block (removal of editing rights). The Banner  talk 19:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It takes two to "editwar" don't you think? I've undone your edits, you've undone mine. However, you clearly started trying to disrupt a page that has been the way it was for almost a decade. As soon as I revert your changes, I'm suddenly "editwarring". Making all sorts of accusations including forumshopping and editwarring. Glad you mention consensus because clearly more people feel the objective and verifiable statements included on this page are not advertisements including Administrators. The contents on this page are comparable to those on the pages of other schools but for whatever reason, you seem stuck on having your way on this page. Goodluck.
 * You have been crying for help against evil me at "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard" (rejected), "Wikipedia talk:Vandalism" (rejected), "Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism" (rejected). You desperately wanted the test results and the Cowbell in it, but failed to notice that it was already in it. Every improvement to get an article that is free of promotion is promptly reverted by you (and a bunch of IPs). Your argumentation is not more that a Other stuff exists-argument. Not a proper reasoning why funding and standard facilities should be there. And with your remark from 15 February Prospective parents seek information about school facilities in deciding were to send their kids which is why this has always been included in the wiki page you made clear that gaining more pupils is the purpose of the additions, what is plain advertising. If the school wants to advertise its facilities to parents, it should use an advertising medium, not an encyclopedia.  The Banner  talk 05:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ow, and no: there were no administrators joining your side because on every other forum your appeals got rejected. Nor were there any administrators who gave content-related arguments here, pro or con. Just one new editor banging at the door. The Banner  talk 06:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You sound hurt to be honest. And for reference, you may want to revisit my talk page and reread what the Administrator on the vandalism page wrote. Although he stated that vandalism was not the right place to settle the dispute, he stated in CLEAR terms that none of the content included on this page is promotional. Detailed, yes but not promotional. Please answer this one question, It'll go a long way in settling this dispute, the content on this page is similar to other institutions like Harvard, Princeton, Regis High School (New York) etc...If those contents are not promotional, why do you think these are? Could it be because it's Nigerian (Pure speculation here, nothing more) but please do answer the question so we go from there.Hypernerd387 (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And you sound desperate: "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard" (rejected), "Wikipedia talk:Vandalism" (rejected), "Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism" (rejected). And read: Other stuff exists again. But I will be interested when you find a school in a build up area that does not have classrooms... The Banner  talk 16:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

And once again, he finds another way to elude the question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernerd387 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You do not have a clue what you are doing here? Why did you put back the info about that/survivor? He has his own article, that info should be there. The Banner  talk 13:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You have started with the edits again. I have asked you multiple times, how is the information included on this page any different from pages of prominent schools like Harvard, Regis High School New York, Eton College. Take time to visit those pages. They are way more detailed. Answer this question lets work this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernerd387 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just answer my question: why did you put the info back about the singer? He has his own page, info about him belongs to that article, not in the school article. The Banner  talk 13:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You really do not have a clue what you are doing. Some competence is required, see WP:CIR. And read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Banner  talk 13:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no clue? Oh we doing personal attacks now? But please answer the question. If the content of this page is less detailed than other school pages, why are you more interested in changing the content of THIS page. An administrator has told you that the content here is objective and verifiable and citations have been included but you insist on raising a different issue everyday. I sense that you derive some sort of weird pleasure from this, I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernerd387 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This current version of the page in question has been in existent for the past 10 years barring minor edits. The banner started editing the page and removing large amounts of contents two weeks ago. I have tried to discuss this with him on the Talk page of Loyola Jesuit College but he is not answering a key question necessary to move the discussion forward. Another administrator stated that the content that was included is not a violation of Wikipedia's policy. The content has been cited and is verifiable. It is not different from those of other similar institutions. Please read the edits and read our discussion on the talk section. I know The banner has been on wikipedia for a longer time, but should that take precedence over the content of the page? What would that say about wikipedia, that older editor's edits/distruptions take precedence over newer members even though the edits are not justifiable? Please read our discussion. Another administrator has agreed that the content that I reverted to (The original content of the page) is verifiable and objective (Please see my talk page) but The Banner insists on reverting to his edits. Please be fair in this judgment.Hypernerd387 (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact I am active on this article since June 2018 to keep the article neutral. Indeed often removing info from IPs or the Ljcwebmaster. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I included test information like Loyola's sister school Regis High School (New York City) If this is okay. This information and format is similar to other notable schools around the world. I have not done anything different with this page. Please review it and determine if it is okay..The Banner this question is for OTHER editors as the dispute has been between us.Hypernerd387 (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Remarkable edit
Can someone review this edit with a brand new account restoring recently removed test results? The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)