User talk:Johnsmith0774

South Farnham School
It is irrelevant who the HT is or was when Ofsted visited. Plus the reference you offered does not say that the HT is different. It just says who the HT is. To conflate that to the statement you inserted is original research and is not allowed. CalzGuy (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello. I feel that the Wikipedia entry for south Farnham school was excessively bias towards how amazing it is. Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia to offer a true account of the facts. The article needed a contradicting view point which is based on facts.


 * The headteacher is one of, if not the most important factors of a ofsted report. The buildings could be anywhere, the teachers need direction from the head and the head makes most of the decisions.


 * Thanks for pointing out that I only gave a reference for the current head and not the old head when the report was carried out. I have changed this now.


 * Also you say it's irrelevant when the report was carried out. Not true - a lot could have changed in the last five years and not stating these facts could mislead parents in choosing their school for the children.


 * The entry I made makes sure all the facts are presented for people to read and make their own decisions.


 * If you thinks it's irrelevant then that's your opinion but to others it's the most relevant fact about the school and the ofsted report.


 * Out of interest what motivation do you have to keep the article as it was? Do you have a property in the area that the value is being kept high becaus of the school? Do you have children at the school? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsmith0774 (talk • contribs) 22:22, April 17, 2017 (UTC)
 * You've been undone five times now on this. Discuss it on the article's talk page or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi John Smith - you seem to be missing the point. You may think that the South Farnham article is biased in favour of the school, but if that is so, and I concede it is a possibility - it is because independent reliable sources say the school is a very good school. Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources say. So in order to make this article less biased you would need to find reliable sources which say it's not as good as it thinks it is. Do you know of any such sources? We don't, on Wikipedia, write articles which hint that things are not what they should be. We state it load and clear, providing we have evidence to support our positio. We don't use opinions, and we certainly don't impugne reputations of living people without evidence. So welcome to Wikipedia. Now that you understand how we do things your future contributions may be a little more constructive. And if you don't like the way we do things, you can really get involved in the discussion and discourse around the formulation of policies and guidelines. If you would like a mentor to help you through the early years, we can help with that to. But one thing you will need to do all the way through is assume good faith by not implying that those that oppose your view are doing so because of self-interest. By and large, they are not. Good luck with your editing. CalzGuy (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"so he's probably a teacher there. Here's my challenge: John can you show me any other school article in England, on Wikipedia, where the name of the head is associated with the report of the Ofsted inspection? If you can, I will be open minded enough to reconsider my opposition"

You sound like a bully 'this is the way we do things around here"

April 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at South Farnham School. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Meters (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The headteacher is very relevant to a school and it's teaching.
Hi the headteacher is very relevant to a school and it's teaching. Can you explain why you think it is irrelevant please?
 * We never said the head was irrelevant to the article, and the article includes the headteacher in the infobox. What I (edit summary, your talk page, and article talk page), User:CalzGuy (edit summary and your talk page) and User:BabelStone (iedit summary) have questioned is the relevance of who was headteacher during the last Ofsted report. Meters (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Meters (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

3RR block
You've been blocked from editing for 24 hours due to violating the Three revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 03:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)