User talk:Jamesmacwhite

Orphaned non-free image File:DirectAdmin logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DirectAdmin logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello Jamesmacwhite. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Nottingham College, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Jamesmacwhite. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jamesmacwhite|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Thank you. Ntmamgtw (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for complying with this request. Ntmamgtw (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FE and HE colleges

I looked at Nottingham College and gasped. It looked if it had be transcribed from some publicity material! One of the lines in the lede about 'from pre-entry to university level' occurs in a lot of poor FE college articles. What is 'pre-entry' it is not linked- there isn't an article. In fact further education college is not linked. Further education is the target, and it says there are 4 types of FE colleges- two of which don't have articles. That is a damn sight better than the dross at higher education. I am going back to both of them to remove unsourced lists of subject names. But what do we do with Nottingham College? We can start by explaining what an FE college is and what a linked HE college does, in language that, say a Canadian would understand, not just a fellow teacher or lecturer. What there functions are etc. At the moment we just have a list of venues. But I think we need to precede this with a description of the structure of the college, the SMT respnsibilities, the faculty structure. We need to explain accountability- the difference in OFSTED requirements, and the pastoral needs and arrangements in the different levels. The four downloadable prospecti give some useful information, and can be used sparingly as references but we need secondary sources to establish quality.

I see that we need focus when discussing the venues- the City Hub, I think can do this. By detailed discussion on the future plans and which staff will be affected by the opening of the new venue we can explain the deficiencies that the college sites are suffering at the moment.

We can then pile in with some heavy statistics and comparisons.

I will put some of this onto Talk:Nottingham College, but wanted to share this here first. Please comment freely here or there or on my talk page. As to the other articles I have mentioned- it is open season. ClemRutter (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beeston and Clarendon edit

It is better practice- to move rather than remove. A new section on ===Redundant centres=== can be used to hold the information. WP is not an extension of the prospectus, it is assumed that editors are independant of the subject, and the references used to support each paragraph are not documents written by the subject. Happy to help- WP forms partnerships with universities and colleges- like a recent one in Coventry ClemRutter (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing at Nottingham College

An editor has raised an issue with which you are connected at Talk:Nottingham College#Entire section deleted by an employee of the College. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]