Talk:UNSW Faculty of Law and Justice

Fair use rationale for Image:UNSW Law Society Logo.jpg

Image:UNSW Law Society 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 this Wikipedia article 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 04:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UNSW Crest.PNG

Image:UNSW Crest.PNG 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 this Wikipedia article 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 04:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UNSW Crest.png

Image:UNSW Crest.png 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:UNSW crest.svg

The image File:UNSW crest.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of content: alumni

In response to repeated vandalism and removal of alumni information, I kickstart this discussion. Confirmed sockpuppet User:McBigginsly has removed content and tried to create a separate page. JJCaesar (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Alumni content has been deleted again, without explanation or discussion in the talk page. I am reverting it until an explanation is provided here. JJCaesar (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Melcous has deleted alumni content without explanation. Please use the Talk Page before repeatedly removing content. JJCaesar (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and stop using words like 'vandalism' and 'without explanation' when they are clearly untrue. The explanations were given in the edit summaries: the content included original research and unsourced commentary as well as suffering from recentism, and the list included people who do not have wikipedia articles and thus have generally not had notability established and should not be included in lists like this which could otherwise include thousands of people. Melcous (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Your explanation is not in conformity with standard Wikipedia practice. To be on the list of notable alumni for a university, one does not simply need their own article. It would be ideal for each person to have their own article, as they are clearly notable (eg judges of the District, Supreme, Federal Courts) but I am not aware of this being a requirement. Please educate me if I am wrong about this. All of these people deserve their own article, and even if they do not, they are the kind of people you would expect to see when looking for notable alumni of UNSW Law. Let's look at your approach to articles to which you have a close interest. There are people listed on articles you have edited, which included people who are not notable. In the guideline you cite, there are two points you appear to have overlooked. First, "The person meets the Wikipedia Wikipedia notability requirement." (Clearly, the people you listed meet the guideline.) Second, this line: "For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni/alumnae, but such lists are not intended to contain everyone who attended the school." The people you deleted do not make a list of "everyone who attended UNSW Law"; they are a list of notable alumni - ie judges and CEOs. For example, you removed NSW Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Fullerton, simply because she does not have her own Wikipedia article yet. She is clearly notable and her position/connection to UNSW Law is sourced. Yet you removed her from the list on the basis of an incorrect assumption about lists. In doing so, how can you seriously call yourself someone who makes women blue? Moving on, let's consider the membership criteria set out in this guideline: "When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself if any the following are true: 1. If this person/thing/etc., wasn't a (UNSW Alumni), would it reduce their fame or significance? No. 2. Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of (UNSW Alumni)? Yes. 3. Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of (UNSW Alumni)?" Yes, in most cases. Finally, you claim your edits were in good faith. You missed the talk page and the history of edits, so let's assume good faith on your first edit. But then you went on to revert your earlier edits, after you had been alerted to the discussion here. Why do you defy the second sentence in this guidance on edit wars? "Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit warring." The guidance later states: "It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring. When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the associated talk page, or seek help at appropriate venues. ... Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute." Your approach, in continuing to insist on your version of the page without seeking consensus on this page, and in leaving a brief description on the edit summary, appears a far cry from exemplary editorial behaviour. JJCaesar (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, colour me confused. You have now edited Evangelicals and Catholics Together to remove all those who did not have wikilinks, an edit which I agree with by the way, so do you think WP:WTAF should apply or not? Or was that an edit simply to make a point by choosing an article I have recently (and in a very minor way) edited? Obviously we disagree here on this article, so we can wait to see what other editors say. Two things I will stress, reverting an edit of yours which was simply based on calling my edit "vandalism" when it clearly was not is not edit warring nor is it "continuing to insist of [my] version of the page"; and WP:LISTPEOPLE which I linked to above says "In other cases, editors choose even more stringent requirements, such as already having an article written (not just qualifying for one), or being notable specifically for reasons related to membership in this group. This is commonly used to control the size of lists that could otherwise run to hundreds or thousands of people ... For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni/alumnae, but such lists are not intended to contain everyone who attended the school." Melcous (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Third party comment: most of the people that have been listed by JJCaesar appear to meet the criteria for listing. With the caveat that adequate citations should be provided to show they are notable AND attended this school, these should be third party and reliable. Linkedin is not a reliable source. Please also consider that many of the people will be listed at List of University of New South Wales alumni and it would be desirable to avoid duplication. Aloneinthewild (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a bit less sanguine about how many of the contested persons meet the criteria. In November an administrator removed a number of names, an action subsequently reverted, so the latest removal isn't the first time this has come up. My first question is whether district and family court judges are inherently notable--WP:JUDGE will be helpful there. Under Politics and Government, one entry was listed as 'Director General Enforcement & Compliance, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs,' with a reference to Linkedin. Business and Law is probably the most easily disputed heading: I question whether the Managing Director, Investment Banking, Bank of America Merrill Lynch; inaugural Chair and CEO, Australian Communications and Media Authority; Co-CEO, Central European Media Enterprises; CEO, UBS Australasia; Founder, Webb Henderson; former Chief Executive Partner, Allens (law firm); Non-Executive Director, NAB; Deputy Chancellor of UNSW; CEO, Redfern Legal Centre[; Partner and Co-Head of Global Banking Practice, Allen & Overy; and Vice Chairman of the Board, Scientific Games automatically meet criteria by virtue of their positions, regardless of the existence or lack of reliable sources. Some of those I've listed are supported either by Linkedin or their company bios. It's too easy for these listings, when left unquestioned, to turn into promotional postings on behalf of the institution or organization. This [1], by the way, was an awfully poor choice of a reaction to the issue here. 2601:188:180:1481:BCC3:E1F9:1205:2993 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

First, I think we all agree that at a minimum everyone listed has to be WP:notable, correct? That being the case, one common reason to require blue links is that it makes it easier to determine and contest notability. I agree with the IP that I'm not convinced that judges of the district courts are inherently notable. Judges of the High Court of Australia sure. (Do we actually have any that don't have articles.) Judges of the Federal Court of Australia and state Supreme Courts (superior courts) probably. Judges of the district courts, I'm not so sure. At a minimum, if we are going to list people without articles, I suggest they are listed as red links to make it clear these people are supposed to be notable. NB, I'll be interested in hearing the discussing surrounding the MOS. It seems to me to fit a lot less well into a lot of places outside the US where judges are not elected. When judges are elected at the lower level, like they often are in the US, it's probably reasonable to assume there is some degree of WP:RSS coverage of them as there is for any politician. Of course a district judge isn't really a statewide position anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)