Talk:Leeds University Union/Archive 1

Referendum
In regard to the referendum section, I would like to submit three criticisms. Firstly, the grammar and spelling needs to be tidied up. Secondly, it is implied that motion 2 would found a scholarship scheme for Palestinian students in spite of comments at the original union council debate by the finance officer, warning that this would be an impossible policy for LUU to implement. Lastly, it is factually incorrect to suggest that the Jewish society single-handedly opposed motions 2 and 5 as they were supported by other polictical factions in LUU. Law4as 21:06, 9 December 2006 (FTM)
 * I have attempted to address these criticisms by editing the text to be more neutral (and logical) and improve its spelling and grammar. I have also added links to the minutes and podcasts.  However, I would encourage you to directly edit yourself, provided that editing is responsible and objectively neutral.  In particular, I do not know who the other student societies were which supported the motions in questions, so I could not add those.

Motion 1 reverts
Re the constant revert/edit at the moment with reference to the paragraph about Motion 1 being thrown out etc - I don't believe the paragraph adds anything substantial to the article, as the breach/appeal was a small part of the whole Referendum process and not a crucial element. Thoughts? Richsage 11:10, 6 January 2007 (FTM)

Hi there. I'm not trying to be an irritant or anything, but I think it's a crucial fact regarding the election. If the decision had been upheld, that would have had enormous implications for the Exec and cast a shadow over the entire year, as far as I can see. The very fact that rules were breached (this much is certain, and on 2 separate counts), and that a provisional decision to throw out the motion was reached, means this deserves a mention. But, as they were overturned on appeal (and the 'controversial' qualifier amounts from there being 2 breaches of campaigning rules - if you're found to have done that and still 'acquitted' then it's bound to be controversial) this also needs mentioning. I really cannot see how this can remain absent from the page. Seeing as the Exec is what most people associate with the governance of the Union, along with UC, I think any controversy is a must for the public knowledge. Especially when it's something of this magnitude. Regards, 84.71.23.52 11:33, 7 January 2007 (FTM)

I'm neither for or against inclusion, however in its current state it does seem like a bit of a witch hunt. The Steering Committee found others to be at fault as well as Damola, and I'm not really sure if the decision to overturn said ruling was 'controversial' - If it is to be included it should properly represent the decisions made and both sides of the argument and get the facts straight. As the person who made the ruling, I don't think it's my place to get involved.

The way this union is run
hy has someone updated thi page to say it's run by six executive officers. IT'S NOT and won't be for months. Will someone please revert it back so it actually makes sense!

Referendum Motions
Needs to be updated. Also how can you call the debate "rigorous and complex"? This is the Uion we are talking about!

Davey Pascoe
These continuous edits are considered vandalism - "Davey Pascoe" is not a postman for the Exec, or a CWU Rep, or any of the other made-up posts that no doubt will continue to flourish. Please consider WP:VAN before you make edits and please make them constructive...! Richsage 16:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

RICHSAGE - 2 Points Please

Do you actually know who Davey Pascoe is? Also why was various -SOURCED- material removed from the LUU page today? Is Wikipedia really an open encycolpedia existing to convey fact, or run by various volunteers who have their own, falsified versions of the truth and seek to immediately dispell anything else.


 * Hi, and thanks for responding! Firstly, it'd be great if you could register as a user and make your edits that way - that way it's easier to see in the edit history whether such edits can be grouped into the "anonymous edits, possibly vandalism" category. Secondly, please read WP:V - Davey Pascoe, as far as I'm aware (being a fulltime employee at the Union for the past 3.5yrs and part-time before that for 3 yrs) does not hold a position at the Union that involves being a postman, CWU rep or any other such position.  If this can be verified and an appropriate source provided, then please add this to the page.  Re. sourced material removed, please check the edit history and respond on the talk page of the user who reverted the material if you feel this to be inappropriate.  Cheers, Richsage 00:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

BARRY- Why were two perfectly relevant pictures of the exec removed? A lot of people feel that your edits are driven not by a desire for accuracy, but more borne out of superfluity and arrogance.

'RLEST'- You assert that 'Most of my time here is spent working with images and helping out with the never nding battle reverting vandalism'. In that case why have you removed two pictures of Union Officials for no given reason.

Davey - The pictures were not appropriate under NPOV Barry Carlyon 14:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Barry, that was helpful, really helpful.

You're on a power trip Carlyon! Give Pascoe his rights.--79.72.87.33 17:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No im not, and pascoe is not a staff member Barry Carlyon 19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd imagine they were removed because the pictures don't really contribute anything additional to the article - probably more appropriate to link to here if people are interested in finding out who the new Exec are. Cheers, Richsage 19:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV NO PICTURES NO DOM ALOUD -> YOU WILL LOSE Barry Carlyon 11:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What does that even mean? You're clearly losing it Baz. These exclamations about losing are a sign that your mental health is in jeapordy. I suggest you see a doctor.

I was never sane to start with, you dont know the real me, ive been borderline for millenia - you will lose refers to the fact you are losing this edit war - so give up now Barry Carlyon 12:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but this is verging on to dangerous. You cold be a menace to society soon. I think the fact that you are so concerned about winning and losing shows that I am on top. Whatever the content of the page, it is clear that I have effectively vandalised your brain.

My brain is not tidy enougjh to be vandalised Barry Carlyon 12:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. asking you what you were on about was in reference to "NO PICTURES NO DOM ALOUD". It makes no sense, it's gibberish! Enjoy your 'week off'.

Barry, take care Davey Pascoe doesn't turn up at LUU in his blue polo shirt, blue tank-top and well combed hair. He doesn't like students who have silly beards, all the best you crazy animal.

Hi guys, it's Davey Pascoe here. I'm on the strike Thursday so you'll be seeing a lot of me. All the best.

BACK ONCE AGAIN WITH THE RENEGADE (POST)MASTER.

or not Barry Carlyon 20:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Always lurking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.58.63 (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)