Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Internationalised curriculum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] 1. Internationalised Curriculum
We read the above discussion and remain confused as to what everyone was looking at as we saw:-
- added notability-proving articles on the site
- Following the article we also note how the so-determined 'advertising aspect' was removed even to the extent that the school mentioned as the first site of implenmentation was removed from the article though we feel that was strange as it was the first school comminssioned to run the curriculum
- One user we note who was blocked by one of your "editors" because he put up a series of article links to support the Internationalised Curriculum area. This was clearly ignored as the resource that it was and the user was simply cut off - consensus?
Was no one looking at all this or was that improvement effort secondary to consensus on deletions? I note with some dissppointement the 'stars' editors proudly display on their talk pages showing how prolific they are in Deleting or Stopping Spammers etc smacks of the BoyScouts not serious international responsibilty of editing a serious work such as Wikipedia and certainly not in the Wikipedia spirit I would have thought at all. At least not consistent ewith the little comments that pop up on the top on my Wiki screen.
[edit] 2. Praht Thai School
Well how did this get so out of control??? Praht Thai is a school just like:
List of schools in Thailand 42 of these listed schools (blue links) have Wiki Pages.....how so different?....no notability or anything like we are being asked to provide
These are all happily listed with articles all beautifully left in peace...so why the Praht Thai Target??? Will these now be all summarily deleted or will Praht Thai SchoolItalic text be allowed back up?
It cannot be sensible that the prime reason for agreeing to delete an article is that someone had deleted it before and then it was reposted. What? Did someone take offense to the repost of a legitinmate article and dig their editing heels in? But alals I see from the above that it is the main reason for deletion...."someone had previously deleted it and look the naughty people put it back...how dare they!"
Oh, and please stop quoting Wikipedia guidleines...they are followed only when justifying a negative action. No reasonableness ensures - discussions on this site have lasted 1 hour and been by one or two editors only - see the Praht Thai Schools Disccussion page...which is where it is supposed to be discussed.....I only just found this page here thanks to a courteous editor who let us know about it.
By the way I have read many of the home pages of the editors who eem to have targeted our site and I must say juvenile opinion abounds in many. One "editor" even stated that including of a certain information type was not to be tolerated calling it "bollocks" - so it seems his view takes precedence over consensus - well why not I believe he was almost 22 years old and so I guess is the holder of the key of knowledge and understanding.
Please help me understand this attitude before we totally give up on Wikipedia as a resource worth considering any further. PTSch (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Are we frustrated - you can bet we are. Can we resolve this ....or will someone simply block our account now that we speak our mind?
