User talk:Bdrgreen78

Welcome to my talk page

March 2016

Hello, Bdrgreen78. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Newbridge College, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Please also note that no kind of promotional editing is acceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "in own worlds, ridiculous", but editing Wikipedia in promotional ways is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and editors who persist in doing so may be blocked from editing. Much of the content you have posted reads more like a prospectus for the school than a neutral account in an encyclopaedia. Also, you have continued to edit about Newbridge College after receiving the above message about conflict of interest, and you have not in the meanwhile disclosed any paid connection to that school: does this mean that you are not paid by the school? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely not paid by the school. Simply editing the article to update it as it was lacking even basic references. There is no conflict of interest to declare because there is no conflict of interest. The has been no copyrighted material, the history of the school is the history of the school regardless of the source of the information - it's going to be the same everywhere. I can't change the history of the school for "copyright" or "conflict of interest" reasons. There is absolutely no "promotional" content on the article at all! The school is run by a religious order, even if it was written in a promotional way - which it is not - there would be no promotion as the school is a school, it's not a business making profit. If some of the article sounds promotional, then it's probably just a good school. There is good sourcing and citations of content now and it was unnecessary to revert a whole days work. There is nothing to see here regarding "conflicts of interest" and "promotions". Thank you. Bdrgreen78 (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the conflict of interest issue. Your editing looked very similar to a kind of editing which is common when a school appoints someone to edit the Wikipedia article about the school, so I wondered if that was so in your case. I am grateful to you for answering my question about that.
The copyright infrignement is perfectly clear. Substantial amounts of text were copied verbatim from http://www.newbridge-college.ie/About-the-College/History; for example, the text "During all these developments the students were encouraged to pursue high levels of academic achievement, with an emphasis on a broad liberal education" appears word for word in the source and in the content you added to the article. Other passages occur with only trivial changes in wording; for example, the source says "This year also saw the appointment of the first lay Principal of the College, Mr. Patrick O’Mahony. During his time as Principal, Mr. O’Mahony oversaw huge change in the college both academically and in terms of the facilities at the college. He remained as principal until his retirement in 2006" and your version says "1992 saw the appointment of the first lay Principal of the College – Mr Patrick O'Mahony. During his time as Principal, Mr O'Mahony oversaw huge change in the college both academically and in terms of the facilities at the college. He remained as principal until his retirement in 2006." Likewise, there are numerous other passages which were copied either without change or with only trivial changes.
I don't know why you seem to think that it is impossible to promote a school, nor why you seem to think that it is impossible to promote something which is not making a profit, but the content you added read far more like a prospectus for the school than like a neutral report of the kind required for Wikipedia. It contained language such as "pursue high levels of academic achievement", "Newbridge College performs very strongly year-on-year when it comes to academic results", "one of the leading centres of Catholic education in Ireland" and so on. In addition, the selection of what facts to report is more like what might be chosen by someone wishing to impress us with how good the school is than like the kind of thing which is consitent with Wikipedia's standards: for example, the school's performance in particular sporting events is of marginal importance, and moreover, you reported only sporting successes. Editing which appears to serve the purpose of presenting its subject in a positive light rather than a neutral light is regarded as promotional, and is contrary to Wikipedia policy, no matter what the nature of the subject, or whether it is making a profit or not.
Other issues might be subject to judgement, but the copyright issue is absolute: content copied from other sources is totally unacceptable in Wikipedia unless there is proof that the content is either in the public domain or licensed for free reuse under terms consitent with Wikipedia's licensing terms. Far from there being evidence of either of those, every page on the school's web site says "© 2016 Newbridge College". I do sympathise with the sense of frustration which must be created by seeing a significant body of work removed, but content which infringes copyright must be removed, by Wikipedia policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanations, I understand and your points are valid. However can you please revert back to the most recent version of the article and instead remove the entire "History" section for now - as this is the only section with copyright concerns. I assure you the rest of the edits are not and are well sourced and referenced. I have put a lot of work into this article to improve it, without trying to promote anything, and I feel a lot of the valid edits have now been tar-brushed or blanket reverted just because of one section. Many thanks. Bdrgreen78 (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have restored your editing apart from the "history" section, as you suggested. I still think the article reads more like a school prospectus than an objective record in a neutral encyclopaedia, and there is scope for a good deal of cleaning up in that respect. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bdrgreen78. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bdrgreen78. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]