I believe Beijing Rego British School, Shanghai Rego International School, and Tianjin Rego International School have all closed, but I'm having trouble finding official sources saying so. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sichuan University 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) 18:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From the User contribution, this user made many edits focused on cutting content on the pages of other Chinese academic institutions (70% of Shanghai University, 73% of Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 68% of Wuhan University, 85% of Shandong Experimental High School, 90% of the content of Beijing No.4 High School). The user eliminated large amounts of contribution from other users in favor of one paragraph intros. This is not the norm in any other entries of academic institutions.

These edits are irresponsible as it deprived other users of relevant contextual information about the schools' history, reputation, and impact. Edits are rushed and indiscriminate, and this user did not adhere to the solutions often cited on their edits. Instead of substantiating claims, The user seem to have unilaterally decided most sources to be entirely uncitable and most evaluations of the institution, even ones with concrete sources, to be unusable as well.

Additionally, the user's editing standard is not applied consistently and does not seem to be the editing standard for similar universities globally.

Wikipedia focuses on contributions; indiscriminatingly cutting down content does not seem to meet that standard. If the user believes much of the information should not be on Wikipedia, the user could have requested discussions on sources or supplement the content with their own research. 209.249.241.138 (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to emphasize that my edits were made in strict compliance with Wikipedia's mandatory policies, including WP:BOOSTER, WP:NOT, and WP:NOTADVERT. I encourage you to review these guidelines thoroughly before forming an opinion on this matter.

Your observation regarding my edits on the pages of Chinese academic institutions is noted. However, it's important to clarify that these edits were not made irresponsibly or indiscriminately. My intention was to streamline the content to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and verifiability. The substantial reduction in content, though seemingly drastic, was an effort to eliminate promotional material and unverified claims, which is a common challenge in Wikipedia entries about academic institutions.

It's crucial to understand that Wikipedia is not a repository for exhaustive histories or detailed profiles but rather a platform for concise, reliable, and verifiable information. The decision to condense the content was based on the need to align these articles with similar standards applied globally to academic institutions on Wikipedia. It was not a move to undermine the importance or reputation of these institutions.

Regarding your concern about the elimination of contributions from other users, it's worth noting that Wikipedia encourages continuous editing and improvement of its content. My edits were not intended to diminish the value of previous contributions but to refine the content for accuracy and compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines.

In light of your feedback, I am open to constructive dialogue and collaboration. If there are specific concerns about the sources used or the content removed, I welcome a discussion on the respective talk pages of these institutions. This collaborative approach would ensure that the content remains robust, credible, and reflective of the collective knowledge of the Wikipedia community. Cfls (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]