User talk:Chocolog

This is MY talk page, offensive content, out of date content and unneccesary content will be removed. If you know who i am, please refrain from using my name on wikipedia, i choose to remain anonymous. thank you

Neutrality of Aberfoyle Park High School article

please post your opinions/evidence here

1. You have provided no evidence of:

Vandalism at the school has been a major problem, with many of the toilet facilties in a state of disrepair. A large number of the computer terminals do not work to full capacity, with broken CD drives and/or broken USB drives.

That is just your opinion and not considered encyclopedic without Reliable Sources and even so how is it relevant as a reference to the school???

2. You know you can just change the article if it isn't neutral, however your changes could also be considered not Neutral either as you are saying that the school is using the page for promotion however saying the school has "toilet facilities in a state of disrepair" is not Neutral in itself.

3. - You point out Wikipedia is not for advertising or censorship - this is true - however you have not provided Reliable Sources for your information that is why it was removed. If you think the article is too "promotional" change it - but make it referenced. 203.213.109.106 (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. -

whoever keeps removing posts or edits that make the school look bad

- That just throws your Neutral Argument right out the window. You can't change a page from "Promoting" to your self admission "Make the school look bad" - By all means change the article - but do it in a way where it is NEUTRAL and is Encyclopedic 203.213.109.106 (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever you are, bugger off. His admission "Make the school look bad" is only the truth. This person is writing ONLY the truth on the page and I will stand by him on verifying the claims. Deman Risu (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes - however you are a student and simply stating your opinion too. I suggest you read Reliable Sources for more information. 203.213.109.106 (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote was neutral. It did make the school look bad, these two things do not clash. I understand that you are within your rights to remove my edits for lack of Reliable sources. THAT IS NOT MY ISSUE.

my issue with the page is, however, is the way it has been written to glamorize the school, and evidence of that is the schools own context statement, where the entire section entitled 'facilities' has been copied and pasted from there. I followed your recommendations; I quoted that section, referenced the quote, and posted on the article's talk page a message saying there should be more than just the schools opinion of itself presented there. yet you still revert the page back to how you want it. you obviously know how to edit a page and use quotes, so while i'd like to, i cannot assume incompetence or good faith by your part.

I cannot understand why you refuse to let the page be changed, especially when it is blatant that you are lying about your motives.--Chocolog (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change the page then. However use reliable sources - what you have written is unverifiable heresay between a number of students- That is all I have stated all along as you can see by this page. And what are my motives exactly?!? You need to be careful with language and accusing people of things. 203.213.109.106 (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i dont know what your motives are, that my point. your actions and what you state as your intentions are paradoxical. the context statement and what is written is close enough to be a quote, and i doubt there are many people who would be able to tell the difference, even after a couple of re-reads. I still have problems with the use of the phrases "outstanding" and "IT-pods" in an encyclopedia article; they are misleading to anyone gathering information about the school and "outstanding" is never neutral--Chocolog (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

another thing, where is the evidence for saying the open design is "unique" perhaps what we really need are some third party references (possibly from the education department) to verify this instead of the school webpage. me and deman are getting pictures of school grounds to put on the site/back up our claims, would you have a problem with any of this?--Chocolog (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My motive? I am a former student and hold the school still in a high regard and don't like to see it rubbished by students who may be angry or upset at it while not providing Reliable proof instead of just an opinion. While I agree those points such as "Outstanding" could be perceived to be make it non neutral however that isn't what I was arguing in the first place. The "unique" open design was quoted from the context again so that's where that came from.

You also may want to read about Australian law regarding taking photographs on private property before posting any photos of the school as well as I believe this would violate it. You would need permission from the Education Department or Principal to do this and trust me I know this law very well. 203.213.109.106 (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not having a go at the school, im telling the truth, the toilets ARE in disrepair because of students that do vandalise it. could you suggest any way for me to gather evidence to support my claims other than pictures, i really would appreciate that.

This is where the point of a reliable source comes in otherwise it would look like your opinion or a one off instance. You would need an outside organisation or to verify it 203.213.109.106 (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and all im trying to do is show that the school isn't as beautiful as the article makes it sound or as you may remember it to be, it's a good school sure, but there are a lot of idiots there now that are ruining it. and i think that deserves a mention--Chocolog (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It had its problems when I was there. You gotta get things in there verified by a reliable 3rd party source or you can't put them up thats all I said in the first edit that's what I'm saying now. Sure it might be as bad as you say, i'm not denying that but keep it to the rules mate. Your last edit you did were fine to balance neutrality. 203.213.109.106 (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't stop us. The internet cannot be stopped. Everything Chocolog says is true. Deman Risu (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up mate and follow the Wikipedia rules instead of making this you're own little rebel page. Get someone to verify it then it can go up. At least Chocolog has some sense to see that. 203.213.109.106 (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me exactly what rules I'm breaking. When was the last time you saw this school? De♫an Ri§u 01:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

For about the 4th or 5th time Reliable Sources - You need reliable sources to show your claims. 203.213.109.106 (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a moron. When was the last time you saw this school? De♫an Ri§u 08:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deman Risu (talk • contribs)

Never said you were - you simply asked what "rules" you were breaking so I told you. And what has that got to do with anything here? 203.213.109.106 (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deman Risu

Thanks for your support deman, but yours or my word is not enough verification for the changes I have previously made, also, maybe this post is better suited to his/her talk pageChocolog (talk) 10:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly thank you for fixing formatting on the page. Secondly "Making the school look bad" isn't a Neutral Point of View which Chocolog has (validly I think in some parts) raised towards the positive. I am merely stating that his section he added was too negative, only an opinion and not verifiable with a reliable source. As I said he has valid points that the article is too "copy-paste" - fair enough - but fix it to the neutral not to negative heresay. 203.213.109.106 (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing i do not understand; why did you remove my blockquote edit on that section if you agree it was simply a copy paste job?

Because all that was needed was to be referenced - not a block quote - Because it isn't an exact copy but slightly changed to suit the article. 203.213.109.106 (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(did you mean to post this under the aberfoyle park section? if so, feel free to move it back there. thanks)Chocolog (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]