User talk:Michael Eggenhuizen

Welcome!
Hello, Michael Eggenhuizen, 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: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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! —C.Fred (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

A note about neutral point of view
I disagree with the edit summary where you removed the controversy section from The King's School, Parramatta. Articles are written from neutral point of view: they are not written to preserve the school's reputation or promote it. Strengths and successes should be covered in the article, as should weaknesses and failuers.

That said, I am not restoring the text because I do not feel the incident relates to the school as a whole, but just to three individual students. If it were indicative of some institutional problem, that would be different, but the sources have not demonstrated any longstanding pattern. Other editors may disagree, so be prepared to discuss the matter at Talk:The King's School, Parramatta. Make sure you pay attention to Wikipedia guidelines like WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Verifiability in the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Mr Eggenhuizen, I see that you're the Director of ICT at the King's School. The proper course of action if you have a problem with the article on your employer is to raise this on the talk page. I'm reverting your edit to enable you to do this. Tony  (talk)  10:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to agree with Tony1 in regards to this matter. I see no evidence that has any conflict of interest or agenda toward the school; (s)he has merely been re-adding sourced content that another editor deleted. That's a good faith edit. The usual procedure in a situation like that is to return the article to the status quo (i.e., restore the text that you recently attempted to delete) and discuss the matter on the talk page. If consensus is reached that the text should be changed, then it will be changed after discussion completes.


 * The situation is compounded here because you have, via email, admitted to having a conflict of interest with the school. While editors are not absolutely forbidden from editing articles about themselves or their employers, they are strongly discouraged from it. Again, the recommended course is to suggest the change on the talk page. If other editors agree—independent editors with no connection to the school one way or the other—one of them will make the change.


 * A final note: remember that articles should present the subject from a neutral point of view, and that requires information on all sides of the subject be presented. When you remove material because it is "damaging the School's reputation", it creates the perception in many editors' eyes that you are attempting to whitewash the article—leave in only good stuff and remove all the bad—which would distort the point of view. Thus, edit summaries or talk page messages to that effect will not get the desired results you want. A better approach would be to ask on the talk page whether the controversies give undue weight to actions of a handful of individual students at the school. Controversies have been deleted from other school organizations' articles on similar grounds. However, it's not a cut and dried issue, so it should be discussed on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

--

Thanks Tony1 and C.Fred .... I'm new to Wikipedia and still learning the ropes so to speak!

This "Controversy" section is of great concern to The King's School ... unlike news media stories that appear in the media and then 'disappear' this "Controversy" section is a constant reminder to the boy(s) involved and their families that this story will never go away! What needs to be remembered here is that they are boys ... the one serious charge that one boy was accused of was dismissed by the police. These boys have a right to privacy, compassion, respect and forgiveness ... unfortunately this will never be forth-coming if this section remains a part of what is a significant 'encylopedia' article on The King's School. The School has been operating for 180 years ... why has one small group of boys demanded such attention that would warrant W108 to write/publish this material. Why not write/publish every controversy in the history of the School ... why this one? Why punish the boys in this ongoing reminder of what happened in 2012? The boys involved are continuing to receive counselling and are being monitored for health and saftey reasons. I would hate to think that Wikipedia places more importance on a 'neutral point of view' regarding this so-called 'controversy' than the health and safety of the boys involved. The School places more importance on the boys welfare in this situation than the School's reputation. However, the School's reputation is also damaged by such publications. Whilst this cannot be proved, the School believes that W108 may have been associated with the School in the past and has a vendetta against the School ... using this section to 'punish' the School and in doing so punishing these boys for eternity. How would you feel if these boys were your children? Would you accept such a write-up? Would you allow someone to pick an isolated instance of bad behaviour and hold the School and the boys to account over this? A School that has such a proud heritage in educating boys over a 180 year period. I once again ask the editors of Wikipedia to review this section and remove it from The King's School Wikipedia article. Thank you. Michael Eggenhuizen (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)