User talk:PlanetBOFA

July 2009

 * I put a several links into my site on 11+ news and corrected the figure on the List of grammar schools in England as it is so out of date it is ridiculous! It is 174 not 164. I also put details into each Local Authority page so that people would be able to get the latest details but I got these messages back:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Plus e.g. additional sites Eleven Plus, Bexley, etc Tmol42 (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. - Pointillist (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wiki needs updating on these details,it is incorrect, 10 schools have not been included. Rather than just removing the links they should have updated the pages.
 * It is a shame as they could just have asked if I minded updating the pages, I spend at least an hour a day searching for 11+ News and spent a week creating the list of schools. Can somebody correct this number and details please.


 * If you were the author of the list at 11+, do you have a note of where you got the original data from? Did you get it from what we would call "reliable sources"? If so, it would definitely be useful to add references to the various articles. The problem with using your bofa11plus site as a source was that it wasn't reliable and independent. - Pointillist (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi PlanetBOFA,
 * As you seem confused by how WP operates in relation to promotion and conflict of interest issues I will try and help. WP has strict guidelines about adding links to commercial sites and / or those promoting a particular point of view. Additonally where you add content and / or links to external sites where you have a connection or conflict of interest regarding the information being added or with a URL or document / book / etc being cited this will typically be tagged and / or removed speedily, editors adding such information will also be advised, as you have been, not to continue to do so and to read the relevant sections of the WP policy and guidance.


 * You clearly have a personal connection with this site . Can I suggest you have a look at Conflict of interest and Spam which contain the guidance and reasons why your edits which comprised links to the URL were revised or reverted. As you have indicated, in common with most of the other editors you have an interest in making Wikipedia more accurate. Accordingly contibute to WP with verifiable and unbiased information. By saying the information on a article is ridiculous suggests you may have misunderstood what Wikipedia is about. There is no paid editorial board beavering away behind the scenes checking that everything is accurate as per a normal encyclopedia. WP depends on the contributions of the community of editors to improve its quality and keep content up to date, verifiable and expressing a neutral point of view. At any point of time an article may need improving. In the case of the pages you added links to, instead it would have been appropriate for you to correct any anomoly you identifed adding an appropriate verifiable source see Verifiability rather than adding a link and assuming someone would come along a correct the data. It just does not work that way.


 * By the way I could not see any change you had made to List of grammar schools in England which still indicates there are 164 Grammar schools. The citations provided are to Hansard stating there are 164 as at 2007 if this has changed then provide a comparable citation and ammend accordingly. If you have a point to make about content then use the Talk page for the article other editors with an interest in that topic will join in the discussion and concensus on a more contraversial change can be reached. Hope this helps:)Tmol42 (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
I've removed a couple of links to your site as unnecessary. By the way, the reason that you have more than the 164 designated grammar schools in England is that the 180 schools on your list include fully selective grammar schools, partially selective schools and a few that aren't selective at all. Kanguole 23:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
I agree as not all grammar schools select at all, partially selective schools still set an entrance exam and are over subscribed.Iontice that you deletedalink of mine and did not delete similar links to sites not truely offering nor explaining formative assessment. As for your comment "a few that aren't selective at all", either name them (andI will remove them) or take back your comment.PlanetBOFA 16:30, 15 December 2009 (GMT)
 * In the definition used by the government and broadsheet newspapers, grammar schools are 100% selective. I have re-deleted your commercial link and a few others.  Please delete any that I missed.  I'm more concerned with improving Wikipedia than your site, but you can find the non-selective schools by comparing your list with List of grammar schools in England and Partially selective school (England).  Some oversubscribed schools use an entry test for banding to ensure a comprehensive intake; that does not make them selective, or grammar schools.  You'll also find you missed a couple of grammars.  Kanguole 22:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)