Talk:North Greenville University/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about North Greenville University. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

For Future Reference

This needs to be an encyclopedia article, not an entire school publication copied and pasted into it. Further edits should have purpose and reason within the boundaries of an encyclopedia.

Fair use rationale for Image:NGU.jpg

Image:NGU.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Rules Section

I believe the rules section to be vital to NGU's Wikipedia page. The rules listed on the page are not typical of most colleges and are important for anyone seeking to understand more about the school. Additionally, I have included two different citations to pdf versions of the Enlightener, which is the name of North Greenville's rule book. However, given the apparent sensitivity of some people to the way the rules are presented, I wanted to get some opinions about whether the rules section comes off as objective or whether it appears to be an attack on the school. Any suggestions to changing the wording would be much appreciated. I don't think blanking the entire section would be an appropriate response as these rules clearly are a major part of attending school at NGU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scdantes (talk • contribs) 02:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not unusual for parochial schools/colleges/universities to have more restrictive rules; a simple link to the institutions rules is sufficient. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for unbiased, outside opinion, Ohnoitsjamie! SCDantes, I'm sorry about your bad experience with NGU, truly. My daughter loves it there. Maybe it's changed? I found your review on reviewschools.org, and I understand you have many issues to take up with the school. Joejoe399 (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I had a great experience there. I wouldn't change it for the world. Never really got into trouble, made lifelong friends and had some great professors. I loved the campus (except for the 5 mph speed limit) and would love to return to the area someday. My issue is the school should be more upfront with everyone about the rules they have. When I started, I didn't know that my room could be searched at any time, that my car would be occasionally searched by RA's, that anonymous accusations would lead to you having to take a lie detector test, or that I would have people watching me watch chapel to be sure I was paying attention. I can't say when I wrote that review, and looking back, I do regret the tone. The school has made a few changes that I'm aware of- mainly the website is ten times better than it was. I really do love the school- I just want to ensure that those looking to attend know what they are getting themselves into. It's only fair if the school is going to enforce the rules so strictly that there be a complete disclosure upfront about the type of rules that the students are expected to follow given failure to comply could potentially cost the student and their parents thousands of dollars in tuition, room and board.Scdantes (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the rules should not be written in the article, but, if you found reliable sources which criticised the rules, you could add that criticism to the article. Passionless -Talk 03:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Dispute

I jumped in after reading the "third opinion" request. These edits following mine seem to be a nice compromise. Thoughts? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Addendum to that diff; I just realized someone changed a ref without a good reason; I restored that section. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on North Greenville University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)