User talk:Gadfium/archive63

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archived talk pages
2004 Mar-Dec
2005 Jan-Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul-Aug Sep Oct-Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar-May Jun-Jul Aug-Sep Oct-Dec
2011 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2012 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2013 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2014 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2015 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2016 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2017 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec
2018 current

Karamu High School[edit]

Hi Gadfium, thank you for starting the page on Karamu HS but a lot of the informaion is now out of date and the Karamu HS BOT will now administer information for the site. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.19.90 (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit the article, but you cannot control it. Please add only information which can be sourced. You also cannot copy information directly from the internet, unless that information is under a suitable open content licence, usually CC-BY-SA. For the section you have copied from the school website to be acceptable, you will have to place such a licence statement on that page. Otherwise, you are violating the school's copyright. There are alternatives, such as proving that you represent the school and have the right to relicence the material, which would have to go to someone higher in Wikipedia than me. It's much simpler to place a licence notice on the school website. You can also rewrite the material in your own words so no copyright violation occurs.
I suggest you always edit using an account, since your IP address may change and that makes it more difficult to establish that the edits are coming from the same person. You should also use an account representing a single person, not the whole BoT. See WP:ORGNAME.
Finally, you have a conflict of interest on the article. This doesn't prevent you from making purely factual edits, but you should not attempt to promote the school by, for example, using peacock phrases. It gets tricky if there is material critical of the school - in that case you should add comments on the talk page rather than edit the material directly. I accepted the removal of the section on the "ERO crisis", which was unsourced and out of date, although quite interesting. That was not critical of your school, but I think it would have been more appropriate for you to have suggested its removal on the talk page rather than doing so yourself.-gadfium 19:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Not sure where we go to from here or what is your motivation for this Wiki. Are you a past pupil? The BOT are confused why you are seeking to edit the Wiki when the school and the BOT are the legal owners of the school and its information. Quite happy to stick within the guidelines of Wikipedia but who is making the judgement calls on what is relevant content eg "generally regarded by residents as less conservative" where is the evidence i.e. facts to substantiate this claim? Who decides Karamu's Alumni? All information on our website has been written with BOT delegated authority and is the proprty of the BOT so no problems there. Will follow up on other suggestions regarding edit accounts etc when I have more knowledge as still a first time user and know very little apart from the wiki page for KHS is simply not an accurate information page for KHS in 2010 and the BOT are not happy as democratically elected trustees of the school to have this continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.15.181 (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not a former student at the school. I edit Wikipedia on many subjects, mostly to do with New Zealand. I am concerned that articles be accurate but I also make sure that no copyright is violated when material is added to articles.
You are probably correct that the BoT owns the school. It probably also owns the copyright on the school website. It clearly does not own all information about the school, and it does not own any Wikipedia article. We cannot allow anyone on the internet to copy material from the school's website to Wikipedia simply because they claim to represent the BoT, unless we have proof that they actually do so. To put any material on Wikipedia is to licence it under Wikipedia's Terms of Use, which is under a CC-BY-SA licence. I am not allowing the material to be added to Wikipedia verbatim without such proof, because I am protecting the school's copyright. The simplest method of providing proof that the material on the school website can be copied to Wikipedia - and any other publisher which wishes to redistribute Wikipedia's content - is to add a copyright notice to the page in question saying that the contents are released under a CC-BY-SA licence. Only the representatives of the school can alter such information on the website, so that is sufficient proof. Alternatively, you can contact Wikipedia authorities from a school email address and negotiate your rights with them. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Permit if you wish to do this. It might simplify matters if you refer to this conversation on my talk page.
Of course, you don't have to copy material near-verbatim from your website to update the article. Just rewrite it in your own words, and add a link to the history page of the website as a reference. Alternatively, point out on the talk page any inaccuracies in the article.
For notable alumni, each line should explain in a few words why they are notable, and link to the Wikipedia article on the person. If they do not have an article, then add an external link to some reliable source which explains why they are notable. Guidelines to what is considered notability on Wikipedia are at WP:BIO.-gadfium 23:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As the Principal of the school I can advise you that I have the authority and the responsibilty to monitor all information published about the school. I am still concerned that it appears that you make judgements on what content appears on the school even though it appears that you have no strong affiliation with the school. I ask again for you to justify the comment "generally regarded by residents as less conservative", can you please site the evidence that makes this comment true? The school has not had a prospectus since 2000 and has not had or recruited international students since 2001 and yet there is incorrect information posted on these two points which I removed and replace with true information which you then deleted and replaced back with the incorrect information. The ERO crisis needed to be removed as it was wrong, there was never an ERO crisis. At the time an EDI (Educational Development Initiative) was commisioned for the Hastings District from which future strategic planning in secondary schooling occured. The events that were described simply did not happen. As you can appreciate I am extremely frustrated that you seem determined to control what is said about our school even though you state that you have no connection (and could I respectfully suggest) and little accurate information about our school. I on the other hand do. The obvious question is Why Karamu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.7.147 (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My principle concern with your earlier edits was the inclusion of copyrighted material. I suggested that you make edits to the article which did not involve such material, or that you post suggested corrections to the talk page. Alternatively, I suggested methods for you to prove your identity so that we could accept material directly from the school website.
I am happy to remove the claim that the school is regarded as less conservative than single-sex schools in the area, and the sentence about the prospectus and international students. I accepted your removal of the "ERO crisis" section. I did not add either of these items; it appears your annoyance should be directed to those who did.-gadfium 04:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Martyn Bradbury[edit]

Hello Gadfium, I see you've protected that page before so wondered if it should be done again, as there seems to be recurrent petty vandalism. NZ forever (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the edits at Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury are vandalism. Unsourced, certainly. Pov, perhaps. It might require an editor more removed from NZ context to decide. You could request protection via the usual channels and see what response you get?-gadfium 07:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Silverstream School[edit]

Hi there. You just added a source which was supposed to verify Beverly Morrison is alumni, but I couldn't find this information on the source. Am I missing anything? --Muhandes (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't actually say she went to Silverstream, but does say that she was raised in the Hutt Valley (though you need to click through to the full bio). While the Dominion Post article says "Beverly Morrison grew up in the Hutt Valley, one of four children, and went to Silverstream School", it is no longer available online. If you can find an alternative source which specifically mentions Silverstream, feel free to replace it.-gadfium 21:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I could not find such a source, except this hacked blog which seems to contain a copy of the original article. As the second source does not specify the school, I feel it is not contributing, so I'm going to remove it if you don't mind. If you feel it is necessary after all, feel free to restore it. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Adding a quote from the Dominion-Post is a good idea.-gadfium 05:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Labour reforms[edit]

Dear Gadfium,

In response to your message, the reason why I (regrettably)removed those reforms is because of a discovery I made a few days ago. I had a look the other night at the University of Canterbury (in New Zealand) website, which contains the source of those reforms, a thesis by a PhD student called Nathan McCluskey. On the website, I think it stated that you could not draw any information from the theses on the website without the author's permission, which I didn't know about at the time. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find an email address for Nathan McCluskey in order to contact him. However, if I am entitled to use information from theses published on websites for research purposes, please let me know.

Kindest regards,

Zictor23. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zictor23 (talkcontribs) 18:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


SmacklBot[edit]

Hi Gadifium, thanks for stopping the bot earlier. Your message is moved automatically to my talk page, there is no need to re-stop when this happens, the mere fact of the page being edited causes the stop. Hope this makes life easier if you ever need to do it again. Rich Farmbrough, 14:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

Directory[edit]

Hello Gadfium

You deleted the directory taupo.tel from the Taupo page. I don't understand why. Waikiki.tel is on the Waikiki page, and taupo.tel took 6 months to develop and populate. It is a directory for visitors to the Lake Taupo Region and has over 900 pages. Are you familiar with the Dot Tel Domain extension? You have labeled it spam. Please advise. Thank you. Bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillRuthKiwi (talkcontribs) 18:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory of web links. See WP:External links. You should not add links to sites you have developed to Wikipedia pages as you have a conflict of interest. There are websites which are directories, such as the Open Directory Project. I suggest you submit your sites there.-gadfium 20:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Waikiki.tel is on the Waikiki page of Wikipedia. My directory is free for users as is the Waikiki one. Why can they have a link and not me? That's arbitrary. I am not allowed but they are. Is there no consistency in Wikipedia policies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillRuthKiwi (talkcontribs) 06:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You might like to raise the matter at WP:External links/Noticeboard. If there is consensus there that your site is a useful addition to the article, I will not remove it again.-gadfium 07:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

kiwijet[edit]

Hi, You recently deleted one of my user pages saying it was a hoax. It was not a hoax it was for my virtual airline running MSFS i had not completed the page yet and had not added that information. The virtual airline is based upon the failed NZ carrier kiwijet. Is there a way i could get the page back? Please advise.
Joga1234 (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You added your virtual airline to Template:Airlines of New Zealand as a planned airline. That seems to be a hoax to me. Also, Wikipedia is not web hosting for you.-gadfium 05:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
If you want, I can recreate the page for 24 hours. That will give you sufficient time to copy the page somewhere else. Would that be helpful?-gadfium 05:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry I have created a website somewhere else.
Joga1234 (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:Waikato U[edit]

Tricky. It does seem to be an independent rating, from this group. But the only information online about the results is from Waikato University's website. I'd suggest leaving it but balancing it up with some other comparisons which don't make it seem (incorrectly) that the university is the top one in NZ. Information from this list might help with that! Grutness...wha? 02:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

PBRF information is reliable, but the references given by the anon are to [1], which appears to be written directly by the university, not by any independent body (see for example language such as "We are committed to providing..."). The other reference, [2], while published by the university, appears to be a copy of PBRF information. I think this would be an acceptable source, except that it doesn't make the claims the anon is making (the word "premier" does not appear on that page at all).
I've added a line from the QS World University Rankings, as you suggested. I also removed the claim that having triple accreditation puts the business school into the top 1%, as there was no source for that claim.-gadfium 03:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

re: a university cannot write any incorrect or misleading info on their website, it is considered to be illegal n hence they can be sued or their university status can be suspended for this. also for the triple accreditation putting in top 1% is true, u can chk the wikipedia, triple accreditation uni list ( if u consider it to be RELIABLE) it clearly says about the top 1% worldwide!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.142.16 (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Please address the points I've made at Talk:University of Waikato. A university can make advertising claims on its website, or in this case on the topuniversities website, within limits. It is not so appropriate to repeat these advertising claims in Wikipedia.-gadfium 18:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Less than 1% of business schools have triple accreditation, but there is no evidence presented that these are the top business schools. It seems quite possible that many business schools do not apply for it. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for its articles.-gadfium 18:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(rm personal attack)[edit]

Thanks. --ClubOranjeT 11:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Tinakori Hill[edit]

Thanks - you're right. Would you be able to change the Tinakori Hill article itself? Cheers, SHF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.255.81 (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to improve it further. Would it be appropriate to move the article to "Te Ahumairangi Hill" with the existing name as a redirect?-gadfium 18:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Geoffrey Palmer[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, note that your unexplained deletion of section of the above article has been reversed. I am happy to help you with Wikipedia and editing articles...Any questions, just ask for help... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passfield (talkcontribs) 08:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. You can help by providing neutral information about politicians. One-sided rants are decidedly not welcome.-gadfium 08:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I am happy to help you navigate Wikipedia. POV should be avoided. This section appears to be same as rest of article in tone, note use of aloof later in article to describe Palmer, which is generally accepted. The other details are facts that have sources-a biography and newspapers. Will check these references and until then leave as is, unless you know otherwise. If you need any tips or advice, let me know and most importantly welcome to and enjoy Wikipedia and editing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passfield (talkcontribs) 09:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Passfield. FYI Gadfium and Passfield, the section I added is from a new book by Raymond Richards, "Palmer: The Parliamentary Years", published November 2010 by Canterbury University Press. The quote and analysis is Raymond Richards, not my personal analysis. I wish it was-a great read. Richards is a history lecturer and authorised biographer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.246.23 (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gadfium, can you actually check the IP address through which registered users make their edits? If that is possible, is that available to admins only, or do I have the ability to look this up, too? Schwede66 17:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Only Checkusers can identify the IP address a logged in editor is using, and they have strict rules on when it is permissible to run such checks, and cannot reveal such details to others. See WP:CHECKUSER.-gadfium 19:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Gadfium, to give you (and Xlerate) the opportunity to avoid an accusation of bias and political control in editing, please rewrite section of article above, in terms of NPOV-as you see it, so FACTS are not removed... It seems to me, a few self-appointed NZ Wikipedia editors are able to delete/remove items at will citing vandalism. They do not have to substantiate or prove their position with evidence or knowledge... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.246.23 (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your adding of biased information does not oblige other editors to work on the article. Two of the editors involved in removing the bias and warning you have no connection to NZ as far as I am aware. You can scream that there is political control all you like, but the reality is that everyone other than yourself understands the concept of the neutral point of view. You may find Conservapedia a more appropriate environment for your edits.-gadfium 20:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Tell me what parts of section of article ARE facts and what is not...YOUR problem is YOU have no idea! Wikipedia editors, like you, should be doing this-adding knowledge, researching and providing information. Wikipedia is an online Encyclopedia-that IS the purpose of the thing. Gadfium, you are NOT a gatekeeper-you can not withhold material because of your personal prejudices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.246.23 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My challenge stands:-alter section of article to NPOV-as you see it...Otherwise you have overstepped your role as a Wikipedia editor... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.246.23 (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

NZ Naming convention changes[edit]

Hi Gadfium,

The two proposals at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) have been open for a fortnight now, and discussion has died down. Can this be taken as a sign that consensus has been reached? - And is any formal closing of the discussion required prior to insertion of the new sections into the guideline? As the initiatior I don't feel that I should be going ahead and doing it. dramatic (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, but as far as I am aware there is no problem with you making the changes at this point.-gadfium 08:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Rose Whitty[edit]

Hi Gadfium, see my note here Talk:Rose Whitty and read the article. Sister Rose Whitty has no direct connection with NZ and therefore should be removed from wikiproject NZ.Rick570 (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the WPNZ template. In general, you can be bold in removing such things. Just leave an informative edit summary, or as you did, a talk page comment. If someone reverts you, that's the time to discuss the matter in more detail. See WP:BRD for an essay on such matters.-gadfium 08:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. Thanks.Rick570 (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Move over redirect[edit]

Hello Gadfium, can you please move four pages over their respective redirects? Talk:Western Māori has the discussion and there is unanimous support, but it didn't start as a formal multiple move request, hence we need an administrator's helping hand. Schwede66 17:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Done.-gadfium 18:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Northern Māori by-election, 1980 needs doing, too. And Southern Māori by-election, 1922 and 1932. Schwede66 19:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Anon edits to Treaty of Waitangi[edit]

I rollbacked an anon's edits when I probably should have just undone them with an edit note. I wish rollback had a cancel button, it was too late when I realised I shouldn't have done it. By the way I like your revamped user page. Kahuroa (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. The lede sentence added was clearly inappropriate, and since I'd removed it once, Claudia's readding it was disruptive.-gadfium 01:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Page moves[edit]

Could you move Georgina Te Heuheu to Georgina te Heuheu, and Taite te Tomo to Taite Te Tomo for us please. Georgina because the te Heuheu family prefer the lower case te in their surname, and Taite because in all other cases I know of, the Te should be uppercase in surnames. Cheers Kahuroa (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Done.-gadfium 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Christchurch climate chart[edit]

The semi-protection of Christchurch has expired and guess what happened? Schwede66 05:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected again.-gadfium 05:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

User:222.155.11.1[edit]

Hi there. Just letting you know that User:222.155.11.1, which was blocked a few days ago, is back and is indulging in low-level vandalism of articles. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably a newly-allocated school IP. The edits to Paul Henry (broadcaster) look okay, so I suspect more than one person editing from the IP.-gadfium 17:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Fox aircrash[edit]

Gday, I dont think this part of the article is relevant to an article about the glacier. a skydiving plane crashed in the township, it is less relevant than numerous (12+) aircraft crashes that are not listed that have occurred on the glacier itself in the last 50 years. Now, I could go onto the page and input details of all these accidents, but that is ultimately very bad for a town that relies on tourism. So my question, why should the recent crash be the only one listed when it is possibly one of the least relevant forms of air ops to the glacier? As someone closely connected to the industry I would request this information be removed. There is a seperate article about the accident that people can find if they have an interest in what happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.35.209 (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Fox Glacier.-gadfium 01:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Manar Group for deletion[edit]

The article Manar Group is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manar Group until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jeepday (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Reiser4[edit]

In this you asked why "https is preferable to http for these links?". My response would be "https is always preferable to http". And since kernel.org is offering https for some time now (March 18, 2010; SSL for its wikis, bugtracker, frontpage and a few more), I thought changing these links to https would promote the https-everywhere idea. -- 194.246.123.103 (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The idea should perhaps be raised at WT:External links. I don't know of any policy or guidelines we have on the matter, but it seems inappropriate for a few links to be changed ad hoc. There may be some older browsers (or maybe browsers on limited devices) which do not support https. A discussion on that page may identify any such problems, or it may endorse the https-everywhere idea.-gadfium 23:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for replying and for the hint discussing this at WT:External links. Perhaps I'll do so... -- 194.246.123.103 (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Howard Morrison dead links on Te Papa's website[edit]

I saw your comment about when I removed dead links from Howard Morrison's page. Thanks for pointing out the dead links feature, which I didn't know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Morrison_Quartet

I'm not a usual Wikipedia editor, so is it ok to ask you for some advice about this case precisely?

As Te Papa's web administrator, I know that the Howard Morrison page on our website is not coming back any time soon. I have deleted it for good for copyright reasons. I also noticed that eventhough this link is tagged as "dead link", one person still clicked on it and arrived on a 404 on our website. In this specific instance, should I rather delete the links, or still keep them as dead links like they are?

I would rather do the former, both from a user satisfaction point of view (the person who clicked must have been disappointed), and for copyright reasons. This content shouldn't have been online.

Thanks for your help! Florence Liger, web administrator at Te Papa, webmaster@tepapa.govt.nz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.98.2.162 (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not realise that the IP removing the dead links was the web administrator for Te Papa. Knowing that the links at Te Papa were removed deliberately and at least in part for copyright reasons is very different from the url simply ceasing to work, which might have been caused by a reorganisation of the Te Papa website, and the content might have been retrievable from web archive services. I have restored your edit removing the links at Howard Morrison Quartet.
I will tag your IP address as being in use by Te Papa, which might reduce such misunderstandings in future.-gadfium 00:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
You are most welcome to contact me with any other queries or should you run into any problems while editing Wikipedia. I have watchlisted your talk page so I will see any messages that other editors may post there.-gadfium 00:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Palmerston North Boy's High School[edit]

Hi Gadfium, thanks for explaining why you removed my edit on this wiki. However, whilst I agree that information should generally be sourced I'm unclear on how this would be applicable on subject-matter such as this where the source is the teachers and students of the school. If there is a way for me to provide this as a source e.g. "former student of school" then of course I shall be more than happy to do so.

As it stands I shall add the first part which is now 100% fact with the removal of any inferences drawn and completely verifiable to anyone who has gone to the school just as the (unsourced) comment directly above that "Many national and international successes are celebrated in the daily assemblies."

Best regards. Potzzz (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

In theory, every fact included in Wikipedia must be referenced to a source meeting WP:RS, with the exception of a few very self-evident statements. In practice, older unsourced edits which are not disputed get kept, and new statements which do not appear to be at all controversial may be acceptable. Many articles on high schools would be very bare if we enforced the citation policy strictly (especially as a school is not necessarily a neutral source of information about itself). Your most recent addition is perhaps marginal. I do not intend to remove it, but I would not attempt to defend it if someone else was to remove it.-gadfium 02:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course they can LEGALLY provide opt-out religious services; I'm not sure where I've stated otherwise? The strict legality of such a provision does not mean it lacks controversy when you consider the fact that it is inconsistent with section 19 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 and s 21(1) of the Human Rights Act 1993 which states "For the purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are (d) Ethical belief, which means the lack of a religious belief, whether in respect of a particular religion or religions or all religions". The BORA and Human Rights legislation are of course subject to the Education Act 1964, despite the fact it was passed much earlier, which allows schools to have this opt-out policy hence it is strictly legal yet controversial considering this inconsistency. I provided this source to show that whilst PNBHS does have Christian-themed religious services (which is impossible to source via the internet) they nonetheless act consistently with this law under the Education Act (sourced) by allowing the potential for parents to opt-out on behalf of the students.

In the end my current statement which you removed despite saying you wouldn't is factually correct even if parts of it (just like much of the PNBHS wiki) are impossible to source from the internet. I would be happy to open up a discussion on whether this information should be added but I'm surprised that there is objection to the content which is clearly besides the fact that there is no internet source which you seemed to have accepted is not required in these circumstances. Potzzz (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


2003 is the date the judgment was officially reported. So obviously there was a significant lapse in time between the judgment and the report of the case. However, it is just a technical issue and unfortunately the source I found it on is a legal database which requires subscription. Nonetheless if I do find a source you can view without subscribing i'll link you to it. Potzzz (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)