User talk:Murtoa/Archive 1

Vivonne Bay

I'd be keen to see a definitive quote, or other evidence from Prof. Short that Vivonne Bay was rated the best beach in Australia. The early reports that I recollect placed Vivonne in the top ten, but some where along the line it got elevated to number 1.Browning ave 02:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:FlyBuys Card.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FlyBuys Card.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

FlyBuys article

Thanks for your collaberation on the FlyBuys article. I sent the NZ company a query about it via their website, and they replied the same, that it's an independent project. I'll let you split the articles into appropriate entries. Thanks again! Richard001 05:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Shell Australia

I noticed you removed hte Shell Australia link from Shell. I raised the point at Talk:Coles Express that Shell Australia should not redirect to Coles Express. Do you think that Shell Australia should be an article, or should link to Royal Dutch Shell. In making your decision, take into account that Shell Canada has its own article.

Thanks for your insight --Whats new? ^{(talk to me)} 21:08, 10 January 2006 (AEDT)

Thanks for your reply. Your thoughts were greatly appreciated. --Whats new? ^{(talk to me)} 16:40, 11 January 2006 (AEDT)

Mitcham Council says Blackwood area in Adelaide Hills

Please clarify the logic of stating otherwise. Paul foord 10:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Hi, have responded on your talk page Murtoa 07:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:FlyBuys.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:FlyBuys.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

FlyBuys (Australia) Comments

Firstly, the article was incorrectly assigned to the category Companies of Australia and was identified for reclassification and cleanup as part of a mini-project I am working on to reform that category. FlyBuys is not a company, rather a product/brand of Loyalty Pacific. Stubbing articles is one of many ways the project identifies articles which require further improvement. Reasons for stubbing include the fact it barely meets the WP:AUS project requirements for start class, and I mean by the skin of it's teeth. It also needs more citations and references which are not published or sourced from the article's subject. It needs a relevant infobox to be added, and this is all not withstanding that parts of the article read like an advertisement and thus could make it the subject to an AfD if not improved within a reasonable period of time. I would also like to note some issues with the comments you placed on my talk page regarding this, and they could be perceived by other editors as exhibiting traits contrary to WP:OWN, particularly when placed in the context of your edit history to the article in question. Next time you have a question, please be a little more polite when asking for feedback and don't hesitate to be even bolder when editing and finding information to add to articles. Thewinchester ^(talk) 02:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wesley College (1)

I don't understand what part of my technology section in wesley college melbourne is not appropriate. It simply states the facts as they are. A section of the article was deleted by a vandal, and so i just repaired it.--Penguinboy 11:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There are 4 RDC(1 at each campus inc. clunes) and 1 at albert parka and 1 on the banks of the yarra according to maps.google.com The rowing development centres may be found on maps.google.com, however im not sure how to source maps.google.com Sheepunderscore (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What i meant was that if you look them up on maps.google.com, it will show 6 off them, but from my understanding there are only 4...so is there 4 or 6????Sheepunderscore (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

just noticed the technology section, its missing a heap of references so ive done abit of investigation and found that some of the stuff claim din the original post are true, please refer to:http://www.wesleycollege.net/emDesc.cfm?id=28&jobid=841 and click on the attachment Sheepunderscore (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If u care 2 look at the other APS schools u may see that most if not all have curriculum/academic/uniform sections similar to the ones previously on wesley's article. 58.175.156.35 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I followed up your suggestion to look at the other APS schools. Only one of the other 10 schools had a section on school uniform and the quality of that article (Melbourne Grammar) is rated as "start class". Of all the APS school articles, only one (Xavier) has a quality rating equal to Wesley's, and that, like Wesley's has a very brief description of curriculum. I don't see the point in lowering the quality of the article by adding voluminous information that is not sourced (although very likely copied from a school website) and certainly not notable. If there are elements of Wesley's curriculum that are truly unique (and not just in the opinion of the school) then I think they could well be considered, but I retain the view that this material is better suited to remain in the school's website, or in advertising material. Murtoa (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

hi murtoa, i understand that wikipedia has guidelines for this kind of information, however like most people in the world i turn to wikipedia as source of information for most things. i do not only look at the notability and the class of the article but i also look at how helpful the information is and how of it is available. after speaking to some of my colleagues, friends and family they too agree with my point and even some of them adding that when they choose schools for their children and when their children choose uni's they too turned to wikipedia for information on things such as curriculum, school structure, facilities, etc. before they went and sort information from school websites and books as wikipedia offers an easy to read and general format of information. parents of students would want to know not only the facilities of a school but also their curriculum, facts and figures and academic structure, therefore i believe the information you hace removed should be brought back for the greater good on the community. 58.175.156.35 (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, first of all it would be great if you talked through a username rather than an IP address so I can be sure it's the same person each time! Thanks for your feedback & it's given me a chance to reflect (by talking to my family also!) Firstly, my reflection is that wiki policies have developed over time for a reason; they're not just there for spoil sports (me?!) to delete material. And like it or not verifiability and notability loom large in there. You could well point to other articles where there is endless dribble and minutiae, and some of these articles can go unchecked for years. If I wasn't watching this page, it may take a while for some of the stuff posted here to be edited, although over time it would. The difficulty I have with info that can only be sourced from a single source ie. the school itself, is inherently subject to bias, and is difficult to verify from other sources. What makes it worse is that some of the info that's been contributed about facilities (eg. sporting facilities) has been patently false (and I only know this from a good knowledge of the school). Thinking specifically about the bits I deleted - prefects, curriculum, academic system, uniform, I think prefects and uniform bits are utterly un-notable. Thinking about the curriculum section, the first section went into detail about VELS, IB and the strands. The additional info would be great in separate articles about IB and VELS, but in my view is really off topic in an article about Wesley. The fact that IB is offered is noteworthy, and it's already mentioned under Structure. The description about the LOTE topics may be unique to Wesley, so possibly that could go in. The sentence starting "Wesley College’s VCE ranking is very good ..." is blatant editorial and has no place here.

The Academic System info in my view barely carries info that is unique to Wesley. Take the Senior School para: "Students at Wesley College Senior School may undertake a range of courses." is simply flab. Next "Wesley College currently offers the VCE program, the VET program, the VCAL, the IB DP and combinations of the VCE program, the VET program and the VCAL programs." VCE, VET, VCAL and IB already mentioned sufficiently under Structure. "Wesley College is well known for its outstanding results in the IB DP program..." again is blatant editorial and needs to be sourced. "In the Senior School class sizes are capped at 17 for Year 10,..." in my view is difficult to source and verify without original research. I won't go blow-by-blow through the Middle and Junior Schools but I find the info added was either duplicating other parts of this article (eg. references to CCP and Clunes), listing subjects that are available at practically every school like Wesley (ie not a point of difference) or vague motherhood statements (eg. "special emphasis on literacy and numeracy.") - with a definite bias away from a neutral point of view that is re almost impossible to verify ("diverse range of subjects are offered", "strong focus"). Ultimately, I am following the wiki policy to Be Bold, and certainly I guess I've been resolute about maintaining the quality of this article. Notwithstanding your feedback, I still find it difficult to accept expansion of this part of the article without either duplicating material already mentioned, introducing info that applies more or less to any school similar to Wesley, or introducing subjective commentary - but I'm happy to debate this further! Murtoa (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi im not meaning to cause any argument or anythign... i jus twant what is important on articles such as schools... i stongly believe that the academic and curriculum information is extremely important and necessary in moderation...the information that was on previously is important and most is reasonable 58.175.156.35 (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We're going to have to agree to disagree I think. I'm disappointed that my arguments above haven't dissuaded you from the material you feel is important or even extremely important. The challenge you'll face is that "extremely important" for you in this instance aligns with what wiki editors (including me) will see as not neutral POV, not notable, duplicating and ultimately unnecessary. I suppose if we all agreed every time, this forum would be a boring place! Murtoa (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Westminster School

Thanks for your comments about my edits on the Westminster school Site. I have indeed read through the Five pillars of Wikipedia - I did so quite a while ago. My intention was to return and rework the changes now - you've saved me the job. As for comments that edits were directed by the principal (yes I did cite that as reason for the edit) - this does not necessarily compromise the neutrality of an entry - it this case it ensures the accuracy. It is a common mistake that people believe that Westminster School has a School hymn - it does not, it has a prayer, and that the school colours are Green and White - not Green and Yellow. I understand your point I’m just trying to make sure that information is accurate. --nathanburgess 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't remember 'God be in my head' as ever being referred to as the 'school prayer'. It was never recited as a prayer, always sung - so does this make it the 'school hymn?'This time Harry Woollacott is silent on the matter - and not because he's no longer with us. Nothing about it in his book.Phawkins 10:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

American River

Gypsum wasn't mined at Ballast Head - it was only stored there awaiting transportation.It was mined at the salt lakes at the bottom of Pelican Lagoon - remember the trucks could be heard rattling along in the middle of the night!Phawkins 02:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Muston Heights airstrip is on Dean Johnson's property,which is basically at the T junction of the Penneshaw - Kingscote Road and the road to American River, and was never a commercially used strip. The Emu strip adjoins the Ballast Head Road.Browning ave 11:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There isn't actually a hamlet at American Beach. Since the name of the former hamlet of American Beach was changed to Baudin Beach, American Beach today is in fact just that - a beach.Browning ave 09:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Kangaroo Island Sealink

Karatta of course operated from 1907 to 1961.Worth a mention, even though it wasn't car carrying?

Some of the defunct vessels were Hydroflyte H33, Islander operated by Murray River Developments ( they should have stuck to the Murray), Valerie Jane ( op. by Anne Hamlyn). Peter March sold out to a Malaysian outfit, MbFi I think, who then sold to the present Sealink consortium.Browning ave 11:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's starting to get off the topic a bit. I'm not au fait with linking ( just lazy ), but the ref. to the Cape Jervis agreeement was from ABC ONline 7/8/02 "Kangaroo Island residents unhappy with ferry agremeent" Browning ave 00:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Coles

Thanks for your comments. The Myer one had far too much self promotion in it. I'll look at the other retail articles too. Michellecrisp 00:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Port Adelaide Football Club

You might like to have a look at this entry, and the 'Fos Williams era'. See my discussion. Also the Sturt Football Club entry, and list of famous players.Browning ave 10:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Media Watch

Media Watch is a singular entity made up of multiple people... either "its" or "their" is acceptable...
Duggy 1138 (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

general facilites

hi murtoa,

i understand ure reasoning in removing the general facilites and all the stuff bout notability. i understand that wikipedia has these guidlines about everything ahving to be notable and stuff, but is this really necesary?

i like many people, turn to wikipedia as a priamry source of information. i dont look for notable information only, i look for helpful information regarding a wide range of subjects. this is because i know that there are ppl out there who add information and ppl who monitor to arruse that there is the most current and informative information on offer.

i understand that this is not what wikipedia was designed for, however i question, does it really mater what it was desiged for. it has become a priamry source of information. why would anyone want to sift through complcaited school wevsyts when wikipedia can offer information in a user freindly interface.

going back to my previous example, if a parent wanted to do research about a school to send their child to, tey wont wan to be wowed by notable facilites, they wont to know what the school has to ffer

i ask that you seriously consider our removal

58.179.40.199 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Loyalty Programs

hi

I understand that you are actively involved in editing the loyalty program pages I request you to kindly have a look at our website loyaltycard.in and add the site in the artical if it fits the wiki guidelines. thanks in advance shetty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.227.16 (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've had a look at your website and it appears to be mostly general commentary and editorial on loyalty programs. I don't think in nits current state it would be an appropriate reference point on Wikipedia for info on loyalty programs. Murtoa (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks will get back to you shetty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.228.201 (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Everyday Rewards (US)

A tag has been placed on Everyday Rewards (US), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You're provided no references that prove the American version of the program is notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If a new article subject is clearly not notable enough, or the article is otherwise clearly unsuitable, it often meets a swift death at the hands of the New Page Patrol. Usually such article are obvious vandalism (by kids at school, often times), self-promotion, and hoaxes. Your article actually lasted a bit longer than such articles often do. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)