Talk:Kingston University: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:37, 15 January 2008

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

is this what David Martland was on about in lecture ? Does anyone really know, cause i am just as lost when i leave that lecture as when i went in...

Yes it is what I mentioned in the lecture, and I'm glad to see that you have found out how to edit the text.

I'd be grateful if you (or whoever) could restrain yourself/ves from putting the graffiti on the Kingston page, but otherwise I'm glad you have managed to get it to work.

You may have noticed other things about this work - such as the list of Recent changes, and the notion of watchlist - these are quite powerful.

Enjoy your week DaveM

I'm not keen on the article at all as it stands, the list of courses needs to go, but I've got nothing right now to replace it with. If I get some time I'll do some research and see if I can find something more substantial and more informative to bring it more in line with other University articles, but if other people are at a loose end, this could be a nice project... --Lawlore 02:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've tried to sort out this page and give it a better layout. I don't have time to pull together enough information for all the sections, so I've made them stubs that other people are more than welcome to add to! Jonks 15:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University ratings

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 23:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

Given the sheer number of reverts on both sides, I have had to protect this article. Given that I had to create the first discussion on this matter, it does not bode well. Please discuss the problems here and come to a consensus. I removed those statements that were not sourced because they breach the WP:BLP policy as well as being potentially libelous. Discuss it please. Woody (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would cautiously endorse the protected version. The removed material is potentially libellous; the sources supplied for the material [1] [2] are obviously POV-pushing. A brief search turned up no relevant press reports. — mholland (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Documents don't lie. The sites referred to above show all sorts of examples of supporting evidence to back up the information that was removed. Included in the why-diana.org site are links to press reports in the Guardian and Times Higher Education Supplement, among others. The www.sirpeterscott.com site includes reports in Indymedia.org as well as copies of court documents.

Revision as of 18:05, 8 January 2008 edit Mholland (talk \| contribs) 6,244 edits m →Protected: link ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:37, 15 January 2008 edit undo 87.194.51.176 (talk) →Protected: support for removed material Next edit →
Line 29:		Line 29:

	:I would cautiously endorse the protected [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingston_University&oldid=182793852 version]. The removed material is potentially libellous; the sources supplied for the material [http://www.sirpeterscott.com/] [http://www.why-diana.org/] are obviously POV-pushing. A brief search turned up no relevant press reports. — [[User:Mholland\|mholland]] [[User_talk:Mholland\|(talk)]] 18:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)		:I would cautiously endorse the protected [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingston_University&oldid=182793852 version]. The removed material is potentially libellous; the sources supplied for the material [http://www.sirpeterscott.com/] [http://www.why-diana.org/] are obviously POV-pushing. A brief search turned up no relevant press reports. — [[User:Mholland\|mholland]] [[User_talk:Mholland\|(talk)]] 18:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

			:Documents don't lie. The sites referred to above show all sorts of examples of supporting evidence to back up the information that was removed. Included in the why-diana.org site are links to press reports in the Guardian and Times Higher Education Supplement, among others. The www.sirpeterscott.com site includes reports in Indymedia.org as well as copies of court documents.