Talk:Hoi Ping Chamber of Commerce Secondary School

Hong Kong Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hong Kong To-do:

Attention needed (60)

...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (18)

Collaboration needed

Recommend topic

Improvement needed

GA-Class articles (60) • B-Class articles (295)

Cleanup needed

C-Class articles (1,054)

Image needed (348)

Destub needed

Start-Class articles (5,475) • Stub-Class articles (6,683)

Deorphan needed

...orphans

Page creation needed

Requested articles

Miscellaneous tasks

...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (388) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,337)

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Moved from article

Trivia

In the 2004-2005 annual school report, it is written that basketball team members were satisfied with a football team coach [1].
There are numerous mistakes in the School Handbook, such as: In the English version, Typhoid fever is noted with an incubation period of 7-12 days, Viral hepatitis A with 15-50 days; while in the Chinese version, the first is noted with an incubation period of 7-21 days, the latter with 15-20 days.

This really is trivia with no place on WP. Rich Farmbrough 17:13 26 August 2006 (GMT).

Oh poor soul

What have I done? I have just reverted the edits by His Royal Highness Ohconfucius removing the Mission part, dubbing it a "copyright violation" and "promotional", and kindly commanding us not to reinsert it! Disregarding that, I reinserted it nonetheless, not just because my girlfriend has just left me and I have nothing else to do but to seek to anger His Royal Highness, Ohconfucius. In my amazement, I did not find my backyard ruined by a meteor. Despite the fact that reason is virtually non-existent in such an absolute monarchy, I still find myself offering my poor soul an excuse or two to comfort my shattered self-dignity.

Why the hell did I do it? What was I thinking, to reinsert a whole section that is obviously a copyright violation and, miraculously, but no doubt, promotional at the same time? Littered with Traditional Chinese characters, yes, you fool, Aranherunar, you have just reinserted a section obviously written by a Taiwan agent - maybe even the great Chen Shuibian himself! Run, before the Commies catch you! You have just reinserted a whole paragraph, full of copyrighted English words! Yes! You should be sentenced to thirty years in prison, no chance of parole! And all the while, don't ever THINK about reinserting the section again! Shit! Does Shakespeare have a lawyer? Aran|heru|nar 06:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rant of a madman? or hopeless eccentric?, or just an attempt at sarcasm? I'll leave the community to judge. Many wikipedia editors believe the mission statement is promotional. please take this discussion to WP:SCH. Ohconfucius 05:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WEASEL? Weasel WHERE?! Weasel HERE? Weasel THERE? NO WEASEL ANYWHERE! :'( /cry Aran|heru|nar 12:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unpopular staff with questionable conduct and inadequate academic backgroun

I have once again removed the controversial material which 2 editors keep on re-inserting in the article, and very recently here in the talk page. The material is inadequately sourced, not relevant, and at best an attack on individuals who may or may not be dead. There are now WP:3RR warnings on talk pages of both users. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy

I have again removed some defamatory material from the Talk page, under the WP:BLP policy. Please be aware that Wikipedia takes this extremely seriously. Consider this an admin warning for all the participants on this article. We are prepared to block anyone who inserts unsourced defamatory material either to the article or the Talk page. The matter has already been reviewed at WP:AN/3RR and is even now being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor restored the defamatory material to this article after the above warning. I reverted his addition, and he has been blocked for 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's a sockpuppet as it's exactly the same text as before: see diff. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]