User talk:Cphilpot

Your recent edits at Pacific Union College
Hello Cphilpot, and welcome to Wikipedia. The PUC article will surely benefit from better information. However, it's not easy to justify your removal of the link to saveruralangwin.org from the article. Can you explain your reasoning? Well-sourced critical information on a topic is often valuable in Wikipedia, and you seem to have removed it. EdJohnston 02:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

EdJohnson, thank you for your comment. I am currently both new to editing and new to formatting articles. My argument is the lack of citation and the need to place "current" topics in a seperate section rather then in the body of the General section. I am currently working on citations for the un-sourced history items (since they are the easiest to learn footnote style methods). I intend to add new major sections (do not know how yet) and one section might be titled "Recent News" or some such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cphilpot (talk • contribs) 14 February 2007.


 * OK, it is reasonable for you to reorganize the article, but I still don't understand the removal of the external link, which seems germane. The formerly linked web site saveruralangwin.org has many pointers to online newspaper articles, which are considered reliable sources.  Also if you intended to remove the link it would be better to be up front about it, and preferably explain your reasoning in an edit comment or on the Talk page. EdJohnston 03:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

EdJohson, this PUC article has already been reminded to maintain the NPOV standard of Wikipedia. My efforts in adding citations and references support that direction. It seems that references in a NPOV style to published articles makes the most sense. Unsubstantiated paragraphs of opinon without citation are not balanced by a link in the reference section.Cphilpot 04:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

EdJohonson, here is an observation, why not place the SRA address under "external links". Also can you think of a comprehensive PUC project article from maybe the Star or Register that presents the proposals and community reaction that could be footnoted to the paragraph regarding development.Cphilpot 04:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be fine to put it under External Links.. I have no local knowledge of PUC; I live on the east coast of the USA. I first became aware of this page only by needing to fix the book reference for 'The Light Bearers', which was listed as having a too-long ISBN.  I can't predict yet whether I will have time for further research; I was merely troubled by all the negative stuff that was piling up without sources. I did put the 'unreferenced' banner on there recently. EdJohnston 04:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)