User talk:Bowden1794

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Bowden1794, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Apparition11 Complaints / Mistakes  16:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

December 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Cheshire Academy appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Cheshire Academy. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Apparition11 Complaints / Mistakes  15:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Because you have a conflict of interest, you may benefit from reading WP:COI. Your edits have the tone of something that would come from a promotional brochure from the school. In addition, your edits are either unsourced or sourced to the school's website. Using primary sources must be done with care. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. Instead, what we need to rely on are secondary sources independent of the subject. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Instead of continuing to add the same promotional material to the article, instead propose an addition on the talk page first. If you can provide a secondary reliable source with it, then it can probably be worked into the article. Apparition11  Complaints / Mistakes  16:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am confused as to why some school profiles also look like promotional brochures (Choate Rosemary Hall, Emma Willard School, etc) and in many instances do not even cite references, but they are allowed to have such information up on their wikipedia page. Many of these school pages, if they do have a reference, utilize the school's office webpage as a reference. In trying to emulate this style, my submissions have been rejected. If I am able to find secondary sources to support my neutral statements about the school, will I be able to submit updated information? Thank you for your explanations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowden1794 (talk • contribs)
 * Hello and thank you for your comment and question. Wikipedia currently has articles has averaged 876 new articles each day over the past year. Unfortunately, many of the articles have significant problems (like the issues you describe). Eventually, some editors will stumble onto these articles and fix them up. Obviously, these articles with major issues are not what we should emulate the expansion of other articles on. Instead, what we should emulate are our better articles. Some featured school articles can be found at WikiProject Schools. Yes, if you can provide secondary sources to support neutral statements (without the promotional tone), then most likely, no editor will object. However, if another editor does, we have a process called the bold, revert, discuss cycle that works pretty well. Basically what this means is if you make changes and another editor reverts it, discuss it on the talk page instead of edit warring to insert it back. Often, reverted material can be modified to the satisfaction of everybody involved.  Apparition11  Complaints / Mistakes  16:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I just added neutral statements about the school and used secondary articles to reference the information, but it has all been deleted again. I am not sure why, could you please help me understand what I am doing wrong? Thank you.

Additionally, their is an unreferenced statement claiming that Cheshire Academy offers grades 6-8 in the middle school, which is false. there are only grades 7&8. I would like to at least change this, as well as the amount of countries and students who attend. There is quite a lot of outdated information that I would like to update. Thank you.

The secondary sources I am using are all from newspaper articles or search engines about private schools on the web. Could you please tell me why these are not allowed to stay up? I also believe I have been using neutral language. Also, I wonder why everything I post is being deleted and not just the single phrase or phrases in question? Am I posting anything that is correctly written or referenced? It is difficult for me to understand what is being done right or wrong when everything is being removed. The original wkipage that keeps being put up reflects incorrect, outdated, and poorly sourced information and references so I not sure why this keeps being put up in place of my information. Thank you for helping me understand, I want to learn how to edit this properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowden1794 (talk • contribs)
 * From what I see (admittedly, I haven't dug too much) is that it was copy and pasted from the source. I did look at one part and agree with the editor who reverted. That part was copied and pasted from patch.com, and it says at the bottom that it is copyrighted. Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material (see WP:COPYVIO for more). Additionally, the other part was because the editor said that it was self-published, which is another primary source. I have not fully investigated the situation, I am just explaining in a little more detail what the reasoning was behind the revert. If you dispute any of the claims, you are free to discuss it on the talk page. If you see any unreferenced material, you are free to remove it (especially if it is untrue). Generally (especially with serious issues such as copyright violations), frankly, it is easier and quicker (not necessarily better) to revert en masse than digging through revisions and trying to fix them. Apparition11  Complaints / Mistakes  18:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, this is very helpful and I will try to do as you suggested. Bowden1794 (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheshire Academy
Hello, Please stop adding citations from patch.com, as it is not an wp:verifiable source per it's own temps page[] as "Patch makes no guaranty that such information is accurate and your use of the information we provide is at your own risk". I'm happy to discuss this matter if you have any further questions. Thank you, Markvs88 (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)