Talk:Emmanuel College, Gold Coast

message: :Image:Emmanuel666.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 Wikipedia articles 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 04:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Emmanuel666.jpg

message: Now that the page protection has expired, an IP registered to Australia has resumed their slow edit war to restore unreferenced "information" about their litigation with the school. This extraordinarily minor dispute concerning the school charging an extra fee for supplying duplicate report cards in the case of divorced or separated parents has received zero coverage in reliable independent sources. The litigant admits/claims on their own website that the school has won an order prohibiting him from publishing court documents related to the case. Even if they were available, this use of primary sources is not permitted here in the absence of any independent coverage of this case. Please stop trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your non-notable litigation. It is contrary to our core policies. Further background to this is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive800#Emmanuel College (Queensland). – Voceditenore (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring re litigation 

message: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/solicitor-chad-rowe-is-suing-emmanuel-college-in-a-dispute-over-school-fees-for-his-young-daughter/story-fnihsrf2-1226673329358
123.243.172.197 (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. RudolfRed (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume the editor wants to re-add the previously deleted information about this litigation, this time referenced to the above article in the regional paper dated today (July 3, 2013). He had previously edit-warred to add information about his previous lawsuits (referenced solely to the litigant's web site) after being reverted by multiple editors. In fact, an editor with the same name as the litigant  and several IPs have been at this since last March. This newspaper article is basically about a dispute between a divorced couple and child support issues, and only tangentially about the school. The mother wants to keep the child there, the father doesn't because he says he cannot afford his half of the school fees. The school says it requires the agreement of both parents to have the child taken out the school. As the article notes, this case is the latest in a string of unsuccessful lawsuits he has tried to bring against the school (and insert into Wikipedia). It has not even been to court, there is no decision, and there is no national coverage of this non-notable event. It doesn't belong in this article about the school itself, and as another editor pointed out at ANI, it embarrasses the litigant's ex-wife and his child (and the litigant himself), rather than the school. I'm not going to add it. Voceditenore (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 3 July 2013 

message: I have just gone through this article copyediting quite blatant promotional language, fixing the numerous broken links, clarifying what the sources  actually are, indicating where the citation given fails to verify the claim made, and marking other assertions which require verification. I have also tagged it for relying too closely on sources which are not independent of the school. 
This article has quite clearly been extensively edited by one or more editors with a close association to the school. A few examples:
*"featuring the latest equipment and IT requirements" 
*"Extensive landscaping surrounding the new building was undertaken to complement the already beautiful gardens and play areas on campus."
*"Visual Art students visit exhibitions, enjoy artist-in-residence opportunities and they exhibit their own excellent works."
*"This is an outstanding overall achievement."
*We are very proud of our students for reaching these impressive levels and proud of our teachers for nurturing the potential of these students." (It's also blatant copyvio from the school's 2012 report)
*"The Emmanuel Journey Program provides specific and intentional opportunities for students to learn and practice values and virtues that form part of the College ethos. The program exposes students to the cumulative effect of years of practice of the virtues, namely, Faith, Hope, Compassion, Justice, Self-Control, Courage, Integrity and Wisdom." (It's also blatant copyvio from the school's self-authored entry in  privateschoolsdirectory.com.au.)
I strongly suggest that these editors a. declare their conflict of interest, b. avoid editing the article directly, and c. thoroughly familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest, neutral point of view,  and writing school articles. Voceditenore (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotionalism and poor referencing 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://docplayer.net/12853790-Government-faith-hope-justice-self-control-courage-integrity-wisdom.html and https://www.privateschoolsdirectory.com.au/school_print.php?school=5007. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Voceditenore (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed