User talk:Boston1869

Welcome
Hello, Boston1869, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

A note about our conflict of interest policy
Hello, Boston1869. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to St John's Catholic School for the Deaf
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, St John's Catholic School for the Deaf, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?
Please read the section above about Conflict of Interest. Are you an employee of the school or otherwise connected to it in a way which gives you a conflict of interest? If so, please disclose that fact here on this talk page before making any further edits to the article about the school. Thank you. Pam D  16:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hi PamD Yes I do work at the school and I want the page to represent us accurately. The school did have an unsatisfactory Ofsted in October 2008. We remedied the error (to do with safeguarding - visitor badges and supervision) and were reinspected in January 2009 and found to be good and the problem resolved. I have no problem with the mention of this as it is a historic fact which did occur. However I would think it is more appropriate for the Ofsted reports to be chronicled from latest to oldest rather than the other way round which is how they were. Happy to talk in person to make sure we are doing the right thing and representing the school accurately. Boston1869 (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)