User talk:MichaelT1979/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Review of Crawley

OK, I'll have a look at it against FA type criteria (or anything else I can think of) within the next few days. JMiall₰ 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

hey

Here in england year seven is the first year of secondary school and first year of ks3 Agent007ravi (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Submitting Crawley for WP:FA

Hi Tafkam; I've spent a couple of days going through the article and correcting Manual of Stlye breaches and a few dead-linked references, so I think it's now time to put it up for nomination and see what happens! See here for the nomination. I should have plenty of time during April to attend to any comments, objections etc (in theory, anyway!). Hassocks5489 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It looks like it will be a difficult process, as I expected! Depending on what else is brought up by reviewers, I may need to check or confirm with you the contents of some of the sources you used in writing the sections you did, as I don't have access to all of them. Keep a look out here for any comments I leave, although I will try to meet as many comments/objections as I can myself. Luckily I picked up the Peter Gwynne book (A History of Crawley) yesterday, which as you probably know is pretty comprehensive and which will be useful if any sources/refs need tightening. Hassocks5489 (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

fr:Discuter:Système éducatif britannique

Thanks for your help. MaCRoEco (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Image:School Stuctures.png

Hi - I see that you deleted this file, and the comment states that a identical copy is available. Unfortunately, it strikes me that the wrong image was deleted. The one deleted was the long-standing image which included a copyright notice (full rights) as I created the original. In the last couple of days, another user, User:Nutty timmy, created a duplicate at [[Image:School Structurezs.png]] which has no copyright statement, and appears to unused. The original item was in use at three-tier education until the above user made changes to that article - with limited success it seems. I have done nothing at the moment to tidy up these actions, but would appreciate your support/advice on the best approach. Should I

• a) direct the existing link on three-tier education to the new [[Image:School Structurezs.png]] page and hope that the user provides a copyright tag
• b) move the image from [[Image:School Structurezs.png]] to [[Image:School Structures.png]] where the original image was?
• c) seek the reinstatement of [[Image:School Structures.png]] in lieu of the deletion of the duplicate at [[Image:School Structurezs.png]] ?

Option c) would be my preferred option, but I've no idea how one would go about it. I also haven't been able to check whether any other articles pointed to the original image. Any advice? Tafkam (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, I totally remember meaning to delete the other one since yours is correctly licensed and doesn't have a typo in the file-name. Sorry about that. Melesse (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Qualified Teacher Status

Hello - I see you undid some earlier edit on this QTS article. I can see that this was in good faith, as you reverted to what was previously the requirement. However, since the most recent edition of standards for initial teacher training, the requirements have been amended slightly to those which were written in by the unregistered user. I have now added a reference linking to the TDA to clarify this point as it is likely to be a common mistake due to the all-too-frequent changes by the TDA of such issues. Tafkam (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't know about the change. - Green Tentacle (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Centralsussexcollegelogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Centralsussexcollegelogo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Crawley-related stuff

Hi Tafkam; after putting Crawley matters to one side for a few months, I've picked them up again. I have written this and this, and plan to do articles on as many other listed buildings in the borough as I can find suitable sources for. I hope to bring the list to Featured List status, before eventually (in the long term) embarking on another attempt at getting Crawley itself to FA status. Anyway, just to let you know really ... and if you'd be able to provide any photos of any of the buildings, I'd be most grateful! I will be in town on Wednesday to take a set, but it will take several visits to get anywhere near all of them - and this isn't the time of year for long photo-taking days! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

New categories in Education

Hello - I started to revert some of your edits, but thought that before I went any further I'd engage in some discussion here, as I think there may be some way forward. I notice you created new categories:

• Teacher associations based in the United Kingdom
• Category:Standardised tests in the United Kingdom

However, I'm not sure if these are the best titles for these as the articles you've included in them do not really fit these categories. For example, in Teacher assoc's you have included the Graduate & Registered Teacher Programmes which are training programmes linked to various establishments, rather than associations. Similarly, you had listed QTS which is actually a qualification / status rather than association. In the standardised tests cat you have included all the Key Stage articles, while these are actually periods of study, not tests of qualifications in themselves. As I say, my temptation is to remove these articles from these cats, but perhaps you'd rather relabel the cats if you think it's worth keeping those articles together? Tafkam (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message! I started out at Category:Charities based in the United Kingdom which was packed full and not making use of already created sub-categories. On sorting them down, a number of educational related articles appeared in many areas, including: independent schools; teacher groups; student groups; research, etc. From a practical point of view, most of the independent schools are charities, so those that had just been placed in the top category were sorted downwards into the new category Category:Educational charities based in the United Kingdom. I didn't create any new categories which didn't already have an existing country split somewhere in that created line, mainly from United States principle- ie: I just copied that structure, not creation of a new structure. Having got that down, I then moved onto Category:Organisations based in the United Kingdom. Again, a number of educational organisations appeared, which had been over categorised - again, I followed the existing country split, mainly form existing US splits. After nearly two days of sorting, I am sure I have probably miss-sorted a couple of articles, so if you think an article should sit in a different category, then please feel free to sort it across. But please don't push it back up to Category:Education in the United Kingdom - it was a mess! If you need some help, please just ask. Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:MidhurstIntermediateSchoolPhoto.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MidhurstIntermediateSchoolPhoto.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Midhurst Rother College

• Thanks for your note, please do go ahead as your article is far superior to mine, which I created merely as I saw that there was currently no article in place. You obviously have much more local knowledge than I. Do redirect my piece to yours when yours is complete. Good luck. Paste ^Talk 18:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks- I'll put the article in the MRC namespace, and then delete your content and re-direct it, if that's okay? Tafkam (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good plan. Paste ^Talk 18:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Estcots Primary School

• Hi again. I see that you prodded the above as non notable primary. I've had a look at it and edited it somewhat. You have re categorised other primaries in W Sussex and not prodded them, do you feel that this school is any less notable than the others? Indeed should any primaries have articles or should they all be merged into their locations unless there is something truly notable/remarkable about them? Any thoughts? Best regards. Paste ^Talk 19:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for your reply, how I missed the SATS error I don't know! Rectified now.Paste ^Talk 20:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hilltop Primary School, Crawley

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hilltop Primary School, Crawley, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Article has been tagged for over a year as 'may not meet the general notability guideline'. No additions or changes have been made in that time bar one category. Non notable primary school that would be better addressed in article on location.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Paste ^Talk 09:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Desmond Anderson Primary School

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Desmond Anderson Primary School, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Article has been tagged for over a year as 'may not meet the general notability guideline'. Virtually no additions or changes have been made in that time. Non notable primary school that would be better addressed in article on location and is covered in article 'Schools in Crawley'.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Paste ^Talk 16:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)