Talk:Stanbridge Earls School

	Hampshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HampshireWikipedia:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To Brakspear: Please be aware that you appear to be using the article on Stanbridge Earls as a personal comments page and not an encyclopaedia. The paragraph on The Wyverns Society is a case in point. Please avoid personal comment/attitude and ONLY use sourced, independent information. I suggest that you re-write the offending pages before they are struck-out under the "own-research" rule. Captainclegg (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

>I am a former purple of stanbridge earls. lord greenway will no longer have the right to the title lord of stanbridge earls and sit in the upper house due to lords reform this is fact not opinion. I also edited the wyverns section due to what were inappropriate comments and personal opinions posted by another user. I do not se how this can be vandiliserm.

I assume that by former "purple" you probably mean "pupil". The issue of Lord Greenaway not being able to sit in the House of Lords may or may not be fact, but your statement Under Labours new proposals for lords reform the title will disappear if labour wins the next election is a politically slanted personal view and as such is vandalism under wiki terms. It is regarded as "personal research" and as such is not allowed. Try and keep personal attitude out of editing. Wiki is an encyclopaedia and as such must be sourced properly. I also suggest that you use spellcheck more often and please always sign your postings. Captainclegg (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from re-listing deleted and/or disputed lines. If you are identified as continuing to vandalise a page you may be banned from editing which would be sad for you, who are new to Wikipedia. You keep replacing Marc Sinden with the name Marcus Sinden. 1.) Do you have any sourced proof that they are one and the same person? and 2.) If it is the same person, it is usual in Wiki to use their commonly used or professional name as recognition. Please continue to enjoy Wiki, but try and be guided with the rules. Good luck. Captainclegg (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned repeatedly about not including personal opinion, original research and un-sourced gossip. Further transgressions may result in you being reported for persistent transgression and vandalism. I have been trying to help you avoid this but am now getting seriously bored with you just writing your own article without any sources or proof. It may result in the entire article being deleted. Please take note. Captainclegg (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanbridge Earls

Thanks for taking this on. I have been un-doing un-sorced edits and sending the obviously new editor messages on his talk page and on the article talk page and either he doesn't read them, or doesn't respond, or is just being malicious and continuing to write a whole article, full of personal opinion and original research without ANY sources! Captainclegg (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I've been watching. Its been noted. I suggest let User talk:Brakspear finish and then the administrators will just delete the article - now that its flagged up - as un-sourced and un-corroborated. Berettagun (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a joke

This reads like a poor quality internet fanpage rather than an encyclopaedia article. I would dearly like to delete 80% of this cruft. --92.10.206.218 (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. The writer (an SPV?) does not bother with any sources or replying to any TP's. It all seems to be original research. Captainclegg (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a (huge) amount of un-sourced original research, leaving hopefully a basic information page. However it is still un-sourced and should therefore only be regarded as a compromise solution until someone, following proper Wiki rules, re-writes the article using acceptable source material. Captainclegg (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"significant"

"While many sixth formers transfer to university, a significant number go to colleges of Further Education or directly into employment." Is the number significantly large or significantly small? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.87.74 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a verifiable source for this one!

"The Main House is haunted by several ghosts."