User talk:Michellecrisp/Archives/2007/June

notability, time spent at school

Hi Michelle,

I am starting to tackle the Old Falconians list again. On the top of the talk page I have made a link to a subpage to list deleted entries whose notability is questioned. This is for organisation so we can keep track of things. It was a rough job, and I may have made some mistakes.

Also I disagree with your edit to the introdcution. First of all, the page should not link to nor refer to Wikipedia notability guidlines or any other Wikipedia policy in line with Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. It should go without saying that everything on Wikipedia is notable.

Second of all you have implemented a policy without discussion that people should only be listed if they have spent the majority of their high school schooling at that school. I don't see any harm in having other entries as long as it is stated, in their body and not the reference what other school they attended and what amount of time they attended. - Grumpyyoungman01 09:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Grumpy thanks for your comments. the reason I referred to the notability guidelines is because mr anon and others before are simply adding anyone old falconian that appears on the web or the who's who, the bar was getting very low. that is not enough for notability on Wikipedia. secondly, my point of majority time spent is that if someone just spent year 7 there (which I found one person did and was expelled) it could hardly be known as a Falconian. much in the way, a university will only award degree if at least 50% of the subjects were actually studied at that university. Michellecrisp 11:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you put up the WP:N thing and hopefully the point has now been taken. As I said on the talk page, despite my use of WWIA, an inclusion in that it does not satisfy WP notability as Professor nobody is not notable.

Whatever policy is chosen in regards to one alumni list should be implemented across all alumni pages (that's my reasoning anyway), for consistency when it comes to people such as the one expelled at 13, if not on this alumni list, then where? (not a specific question about that entry). I am not sure what the policy is, but I have decided that the rule isn't up to us alone. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#How many years to be spent at a school for inclusion on alumni list? and join in on the conversation if you want. - Grumpyyoungman01 23:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I will make a comment. Michellecrisp 01:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning tag

Thanks, I appreciate that. I was wondering how to get warnings to people. Problem is most don't have IDs. Cheers.--Jeff79 00:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Karen Tso

I disagree with your edit summary in removing the primary sources tag - a total reliance on primary sources indicates it is probably a non-notable person when measured against WP:N and WP:BIO who does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Leaving a primarysources tag on it was something I was doing prior to taking this to AfD. As it is the only references are from current, or past, employers websites and I will take this article to AfD in a few days.Garrie 03:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Socialist Alternative (Australia)

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Socialist Alternative (Australia), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. WikiTownsvillian 15:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

discussion at WikiProject Schools

Hi Michelle,

No further discussion for a while so I 'closed' the discussion at WikiProject Schools and added a section on the article itself about alumni pages, including the consensus for option number 1, all people to be included regardless of the amount of time spent on the school roll. Thanks for all your work to the OF page. - Grumpyyoungman01 09:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dean Gillespie

Dear Michelle,

The comments about Kutasi in the article on Dean Gillespie are untrue. They should be deleted. What proof do you have that he was involved in the same thing as Dean Gillespie? I haven't even seen any newspaper articles which suggest that is true.

Secondly, the reference to Kutasi on the article about David Clarke is also inaccurate. He has not been a member of the Liberal Party for 2 years, so he can't possibly be a "prominent Young Liberal" as the article.

this is why these references were changed and should remain altered for accuracy purposes.

sorry, last post should have included my name details

Oz hun 16:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

looking good

Just some thoughts, don't read anything unnecessary into them.

If you think that the low standard of notability and verification that inhabits the OF page makes the school look good and is a kind of POV (which it is), I would disagreee because I think it makes the school look worse, when only one or two people of the "Alan Border - wow that must be a good school variety" are on the list. Compare with List of Melbourne High School alumni, short and to the point, yet it makes Melbourne High look so much better than NSBHS. - Grumpyyoungman01 07:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Tourism in India

Just a note I am not responsible for the length of that article, I just did some formatting and tried to compact it by putting the images in gallerys in certain sections, even though some might be misplaced, but I did my best, especially when I know nothing about India. (Wonder-Contributor)(<S>)

Mindys12345, I wasn't having a go at any individual, merely commenting on the length of it compared to most articles. Michellecrisp 14:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (Wonder-Contributor)(<S>)

Auckland

I'd like to tell you that I will contest many of your changes to the Auckland article. I will let you finish with your changes first before I do my edits, but please don't expect too much agreement. This is not exactly a weakly-edited article, but a work that grew out of consensus by many active editors. MadMaxDog 08:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit snappish at first. Bad 'ownership of article' syndrome, I know. I still disagree with some of your removals, but you do have a point with some changes (though I tended to weaken the statements you objected to, instead of removing them). Cheers, MadMaxDog 09:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Saskatoon

Just to give you a heads up, I think I messed up your edits on that page. I was at Recent Changes, saw 2 lines as the same line and thought for a moment you were blanking someone's userpage. Sorry for the messup. ^_^; -WarthogDemon 01:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Innocent mistake. Michellecrisp 01:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Britomart

Hi. Can you please drop me a note on my talk when you are done making changes to britomart? I was in the process of providing refs that you asked for, but noticed that you were still editing. MadMaxDog 06:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Should have covered what you asked for. Please check if there is anything else that you object to in the present state. Cheers. MadMaxDog 07:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I dread what you mean with 'closer' look. Did the tagging you did to articles like 'Public transport in Auckland' count as casual for you? Anyway, as noted (at the Public transport article talk page, I believe), I'd appreciate it if you'd at least give me a chance to keep up. As you can see in Britomart, I am certainly able to back up 90% of the claims that you disputed or asked for refs for. MadMaxDog 07:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Closer look means reading to see if it makes sense, certainly won't be major edits. All tagging I put up is for a reason against Wikipedia guidelines. Michellecrisp 07:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Auckland

One of your previous edit summaries noted: "Modes - car usage is similar to many US cities which have lower mode share than Auckland, ie higher car use". This sounds a bit circular (and unreferenced) to me. Can you please explain. Thank you. MadMaxDog 08:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference is here which I've added to some articles: this figure is comparable to numerous North American and Australian cities. http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-intl-cityshare.htm

I agree, this debate about public transport is being repeated in 3 articles, Transport in Auckland, Public Transport in Auckland, and Public transport in New Zealand. seems too much overlap. Michellecrisp 08:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to concentrate it on PT in Auckland, with refs to it from T in Auckland and Auckland. This would also allow us to take out the discussion (pro and con) of Cox, which I feel is way to specific for 'Auckland' itself.

Or we might do the same little spat for Auckland City too! Just kidding. MadMaxDog 08:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Auckland II

I realise that we are more or less fighting this little PT argument in 3-4 places (articles) just for the Auckland region.

(One good argument against splitting and then duplicating information in both articles, if I ever heard one, but some people don't listen...)

What I am proposing is that I cut the transport section again in Auckland (replace the stuff about pro/con advantages/disadvantages of PT with a simple sentence about it being disputed amongst politicians and experts) and we try to keep the discussion (i.e. Wikipedia's coverage of the public discussion, not ours here) more focused within Public transport in Auckland? That sound reasonable to you? MadMaxDog 08:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the various contentious sections within Auckland (except the Future Growth section itself, but it does not talk about transport anymore except in very general, neutral terms), and left only a (hopefully NPOV and balanced) summary at the transport section. I have included both claims and counterclaims into the Public transport in Auckland article.

I will eventually get around to do something similar to Transport in Auckland. We could then work at getting 'PT in Auckland' balanced and better referenced. Hope that works for you. No need to try and juggle the ball in three hands at the same time. MadMaxDog 10:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)