Talk:Louisville Classical Academy

United States: Louisville Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisville (assessed as Low-importance).

Schools

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Call for page removal.

Hello! I'd like to put in a request that this page be taken down. The page is frequently edited by a user who continually remarks with uncited/inaccurate information. Although the school does in fact exist, I don't see how a article that is repeatedly edited to include false or specious claims furthers wikipedia's mission. I am also submitting individual edits in regard to each of their claims. However, since this editor has enough time to frequently undo edits, it does not feel like a good use of my time to make individual edits when they will just set it up again. Thank you, and I hope to continue this conversation. Greenblock575 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing Wikipedia's mission, this article is clearly out-of-sync with all three of wikipedia's values regarding neutral-point-of view, verifiability, and avoiding original research. Almost all of the information discussed in the article is editor's unique point of view. Greenblock575 (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenblock575, for requesting deletion see the deletion policy. For resolving disputes about article content, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I can't help but notice, however, that you so far only have edited the article once, and have not been reverted. |Madeline. 17:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Madeline. That's correct, I have not had any of my comments edited away. I meant that the user has already extensively rewritten the article, undoing several years of previous edits, even though they flagged it merely as minor "typo" edits. I tried reverting the entirety of the user's edits, but I was told I would have to edit them individually because the article had previously been edited. I could do that, but since the user didn't cite the sources they were editing, and the previous sources had also not been cited I don't really know what to do about it. Maybe I should pose this as a question. As written this article contains extensive comments that seem to me to be pretty flagrant violations of Wikipedia's code of conduct. To be frank too, I am personally invested in the school, but then the previous user also seems to have been. I don't have much experience editing wikipedia, and I don't have really time to learn. But is there something I can do about this? Greenblock575 (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maddy_from_Celeste tagging you directly, but of course welcome to anyone else. Greenblock575 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I learned how to revert the entire page and I did it (it was easier than I thought, thank you for recommending those links to seek other options), however, I am still unsure of whether or not this is the best fix. The previous version of the article does contain substantial issues. It is certainly written as an advertisement and contains no citations at all, so I appreciate any feedback that you recommend. Greenblock575 (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the revert was a good thing. However, you should not throw around accusations of vandalism lightly. Wikipedia:Vandalism explains the narrow definition used on Wikipedia; when a change is not obviously in bad faith, you should not call it vandalism. Of course you should also ideally seek to add some sources to the article, as it currently cites none. |Madeline. 19:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I appreciate it greatly. I think you are totally right about the lack of sources. The article as it stands still needs a lot of work! Thank you for explaining this process to me. Greenblock575 (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]