" 

 ==Talk:William C. Harvey School== 
 Hi, Gogo Dodo. I put a template on the page of the creator of that school page, , which told him what he could do to contest that it was a copyvio — some stuff that involved using the article talkpage, the one you've deleted. I explained further on the school talkpage itself, for the benefit of my colleagues rather than the newbie Oldtrowel, mentioning the Way Back Machine, so they could see that Wikipedia was copypasting the school prospectus, not the other way around. I meant to leave the talkpage for a few days before deleting it, since the material on it was potentially useful. Not that I expect Oldtrowel to come looking for it; he had four edits altogether, in 2006, all within a few days. But students and staff at the school may be nonplussed that ""their"" article is gone, I thought. (Most likely they won't find Oldtrowel's userpages.) Shouldn't we leave the talkpage for a few days? What do you think? Regards   |  .  

 P.S. It's so easy to find these massive school copyvios; most of the so-called school articles are simply copypastes of some prospectus, as the advertisement style clearly indicates. I can't believe WikiProject schools ""assesses"" them without even bothering to click on the link to the school website, which is always right there on the page, and where the ""article"" text would stare them in the face if they did. What a swamp the school articles are. A person could flop around in that category forever. -(  |  . 

 :Replied on your talk page.     

 == Talk Page Cleaning == 

 No problem. ) I may not have done much editing lately, but I do check Wikipedia a lot still. -  

 == Whoops. == 

 Sorry about my mistake on the ""Catching Fire"" page; I was simply trying to register the previous fix (that was my own before I signed up) as my own.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by   •    

 == Ken Boyd (politican) == 

 Gogo Dodo, 

 Sorry for bothering you!  I noticed that you were an administrator and had previously done some editing on the Wikipedia page of Ken Boyd (politican).  I have done a lot of work on the page (I am starting to become interested in local politics and was appalled at the bias tone the page originally had!)  and have worked very hard to keep it neutral and well-researched.  I would like to do work on Mr. Boyd's opponent, Cynthia Neff, but her page was deleted due to her 'not being important'.  In my revisions I have made great strides to uphold the tenants laid out in the Wikipedia guidelines, but today an unknown user (IP address only) has been revising the page to an earlier state where it was poorly researched and full of bias.  Of note is the fact that the individual who first put the bias in the article is banned from Wikipedia for having multiple accounts (letsgocrazytogether) and this individual is attempting to revert the page back to that state.  The argument is that I have deleted information which was well cited and that Wikipedia is all about adding information, not subtracting.  While I agree with this statement wholeheartedly, the user neglects to mention that the information being deleted is not factually correct and extremely bias.  In addition, the reversion deletes half of the biography, all of the committee assignments, all of the current goings of the 29 Bypass and all of Boyds committee work.  In short, the reversion deletes half the article all while the IP address user claims that Wikipedia should never be about deleting work. 

 I do not like to see my work wasted and will continue to undo this persons revisions.  Could you give me advice or your input on the situation?  I am not bias for Mr. Boyd, heck I doubt I will even vote for him.  However I want this to be a good source of information and not have my work go to waste.  Thanks again and sorry if I am supposed to be speaking with someone else. 

 escytherdon   

 :[http://en.wikipedia.org