Talk:Kardinia International College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Kardinia International College is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geelong.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia.
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · history · watch · refresh) the site is really accurate maybe you should put in some thing about the school productions?? and whats with how it says 'your mum'? thanks i say keep the controversy comments. it creates a balanced view.

	This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.	Schools Portal
Low	This article has been rated as Low-Importance within Schools.
Assessment: Hello all, and thank you for contributing to this school article. I'm part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Assessment team, and I'm reviewing this page. I'm currently giving it a grade of Start on the Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment Scale and an importance of Low on this importance scale. For information on improving this article, please visit the WikiProject Schools Project Page. My reasoning is as follows: Lots of good information but a distinct lack of referenced material. There is also an edit war going on. Adam McCormick 03:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, I can fill the Controversy section with PAGES UPON PAGES of stuff. I'll start by correcting what's there already... rewrite the drugs section (I graduated with about 5-6 of the well known dealers, years before the crackdown) --TheHeadSage 12:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please not that this is an encyclopedia. Information you add should be found in published sources rather than WP:OR. Tanks for contributing! Adam McCormick 03:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a strong feeling that the last edit by 203.220.120.247 (the one in which the controversy section was removed) is an instance of censorship... 00:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

i would like to dispute the nuetrality of this article

[edit] People removing stuff

It seems people keep removing stuff from this page. Feel free to, but please explain your reasoning on this page or it will just get put back again

-- TimNelson 05:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I didn't make the removal, I did agree with it. It contained only a reference to the first sentence, and that is pretty hard to check as it's a local paper with no relevant web archive. Is the alleged behavior of a former member of staff notable anyway? Chriswiki 10:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You can actually search the archive, but to view an entire article costs. However, doing a search on the relevant words shows up nothing, so I'm glad to see it go. -- TimNelson 14:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "Chriswiki" - The removal of the aforementioned content does seem reasonable. The allegations contained within are hard to verify and don't lend themselves to the tone of the article. We should be focusing on the many positive things achieved by this school, not past indiscretions by former members of staff. 123.3.26.86 10:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. We shouldn't be focussing on the positive things, because of WP:NPOV. We should be giving equal weight to everything that's verifiable and within Wikipedia guidelines.

BTW, this (ie. removal of stuff) seems to have been an ongiong problem here, and this is the first time anyone has discussed stuff on the talk page. In fact, the first time I came to the page, most of it had been deleted. Thanks all for engaging in discussion!

-- TimNelson 14:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Andrew/Simon/123.3.26.86, as Chriswiki mentioned in the history, if you want your name to show up properly, you need a Wikipedia account. Click the link at the very top right of every page.

-- TimNelson 14:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kardinia Logo.jpg

Image:Kardinia Logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Followed the usage of the Fair Use policy for a logo, used the Fair Use Template. Philryan (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The website link

I was just looking through the history (Which is fairly humorous for a Kardinian such as I) and noticed one of the most recent changes was to replace the link to portal.kardinia.vic.edu.au to www.kardinia.vic.edu.au (or something along those lines). Should this remain? The portal is the school's Intranet, while the www link is to the school's actual web page, for the public. Should the article contain links to both? James.Denholm (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs the intranet link - it needs a login - pretty useless for the general public. If you did have a login, then you would already know the link to it. Wongm (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)