User talk:Mr Bluefin

Auckland International College
Hi Mr. Bluefin. Although the Academics-IB section contains some information that has already been included in the IB diploma programme article, it has specific subjects AIC offers in each group (for example, AIC does not offer Business in the Individuals and Societies group). By deleting this whole section you took away some important information. Why did you remove the Reference section as well? Regards --Le Ha Giang 04:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It was explained on the note on the article's talk page about the edit. The links were *not* removed; they are still on the page, but in a different place (the infobox). I suggest this disscussion continue on the article talk page if you want to talk more. Cheers, Mr Bluefin 11:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Further comment left on article talk page, with reference to the omission of Business in Group 3. Mr Bluefin 11:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

NZ school edits
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! I notice you've been removing a lot of information from the articles on NZ schools, especially where it regards 'notable alumni'. What standard are you using for deciding which to remove? Many of the names in question have articles of their own and that's usually considered enough 'notability' for inclusion. Regards, Z iggurat 23:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm just a little curious as to what you the standard you use for encyclopedic information? --IanRitchie 23:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply to both---Hi. Thanks for watching my edits. My motivation behind the edits is that most of the articles sound like they've been written by ex-students. Apart from blatantly unencyclopaedic material (canteen price lists...), I generally try to keep information which might be of interest to non-locals, and to non-ex-students. This means that I watch for "Building XYZ is used for teaching Physics"---which in the context of New Zealand schools, is not notable, since they are all built to a standard plan.
 * Standard for notablility: I'm sure there is a Wikipedia: page on this, but I try to keep these lists from growing out of control. Every single sports player, army general etc probably is not a good idea even if they have blue wikilinks. The standard I use is: If they are Governor-General or Prime Minister, then that's notable; international fame is also notable; NZ household names are also notable. The reasoning behind my name edits is because there are names which are not well-known even inside New Zealand, and have only local significance. Again this is because I suspect the names were added by ex-students. (even though this is just selective quoting, I point to WP:NOT about WP not being a soapbox.)
 * Obviously, I am non an inclusionist/inclusivist/... . Apologies if my edits were taken by surprise, and for this rambling mess of a reply! Cheers, Mr Bluefin 23:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

WHS
Hi Mr Bluefin,

WRT to your edits on Wellington High. I think you have cropped a little too much. WHS actually *is* of some significance for secondary education in NZ. Before the Wgtn Coll of Design (as WHS was originally known) was established NZ secondary schools offered a curriculum that was aimed only at preparation for Uni, and was essentially useless for most students. All the NZ Technical schools are more-or-less directly modelled on WHS, and the idea that secondary education could be broader than just preparation of a few for Uni was first articulated in NZ through WHS. In this sense WHS was not merely first, but was a pioneer. Personally, I think that this is of interest to non-locals and non-ex-students, and needs to be made explicit. Making people figure out the signiicance for themselves is asking a lot.

I'll see if I can find a source for the claim that WHS has the largest Community Ed programme. Not surprisingly, WHS pioneered that too in NZ.

I will probably re-instate the Education Exporter of the Year Award. It is an external award (NZ govt IIRC), and gives evidence of the size and scope of the inernational programme at WHS. It is better than "WHS has diverse community of blah blah blah..."

Over summer 2005-6 I spent a while adding an infobox to all the NZ school wikipages (yes, I know, I need a life :-) and I removed a lot of piffle from lots and lots of school wikipedia pages. One of the things which bothered me was that the genuinely interesting (e.g. Cambridge High, some special schools like the Correspondence School and Van Asch College) were just swamped by vanity pages, and that rather than providing any insight into of the development of schooling in NZ the only historical information was precedence claims. I pruned a lot of stuff, but I think that you are pruning even harder than I did. If the pruning encourages stronger growth then it has done its job.

Best,

Neil Leslie 01:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

PS Pakuranga College has not yet settled down :-(

MRGS
Your edits to Mount Roskill Grammar School have reduced the article to less than half of what it was even though the information was quite important. You could have pointed out the issues on the talk page first or cleaned up the POVish bits yourself. Please refrain from futher such edits. I have not looked through the other schools in detail, but I think in most cases what you are doing to school may be right, but in other cases you are going overboard.--Konstable 01:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

School articles
Hi - although I can understand your thinking about a lot of the information in the schools articles, in several cases information you have removed was encyclopedic information - it was just poorly written. I would strongly suggest that rather than the wholesale removal of this information it be placed on the talk page (so that other editors may tidy it and replace what can be saved). Your current editing is not helping in the clean-up of New Zealand school articles, as it is rendering some of them into potential candidates for deletion by removing considerable information. Please be more circumspect with your editing! Grutness...wha?  02:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Francis Douglas Memorial College
Just because "most New Zealanders haven't heard of xxx" doesn't mean that they're not notable. I'm sure most New Zealanders haven't heard of, say, Dillon Bell, but that doesn't mean he's not notable. Please remember this before you go wiping lists like that. You removed a person from the alumni list who has his own wikipedia article (Conrad Smith), and is therefore quite notable. I do agree with the rest of your edit, though; I've removed those bottom two from the list, I agree, those two are not notable. Thanks for removing them. Mitch119 12:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Change of tack
Just to add another perspective to some of these recent comments... While WP:NOT is official policy, you might also want to consider the guideline don't bite newcomers. I appreciate you haven't been signed up that long yourself, but considering a person's edit history can help improve your approach. For example, if you see someone adding puffery to a school article, but they've made the effort to sign up etc., not just editing from an IP, it can be a good strategy to explain on their talk page the idea of encyclopaedic values etc. That way, (hopefully), rather than fulfilling a janitorial role, they may go on to make better value contributions themselves. Just a thought. --Limegreen 11:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Random removal of verfied info Timeline of New Zealand history
FYI http://www.stats.govt.nz/quick-facts/people/history-1850-1899.htm is an official New Zealand Government website with trustworthy information and is perfectly ok as a source for the timeline of NZ. Why would you make such an apparently random removal of HALF of the information about 1897 that is clearly sourced from there? and why make such a request of someone with knowledge, when the verification is supposed to be already published? "(→1890s - While it seems from Wikipedia that that organisation existed, can someone with a fuller understanding of the topic add it back?)" I simply can not understand that action, but it seems to be consistent with the experience of others here, and thats cause for great concern by wikipedians. Would you please explain the rationale?moza 04:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Frustration generates inappropriate language
Looking at the discussion surrounding your Jimbo quotation on your user page suggests that its inappropriate to take it out of context: for a start there is a by-line as follows: I see the word free used THREE times there, and thats the counter-balance to all this 'psuedo regulatory' behaviour in the name of building a better wikipedia. Yes you are free to continue just the way you are, and so is everyone else, its the positively altered behaviour that stems from learning about the consequences of such interaction that will be the success formula for wikipedia. There is also a huge body of Jimbo advice available that suggests a different approach to what you are taking, discussion is one possible other response prior to removal. I think that the human element of this space trancends the apparent purpose, in other words human relationships are more important than creating perfectly written minimalistic articles. I'm against false and misleading info especially about persons also, so I'm all for the core purpose, I just see a more collaborative approach is better.moza 04:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
 * 2)    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
 * 1)    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #

Wellington College disambiguation

 * I did not think your move of the Wellington College dab page was appropriate, notwithstanding it was to favour the English institution, and I have reverted. I note that you are from NZ so are well aware that this is an international encyclopaeida and one person's Wellington College might not equal the most famous and / or notable one in Berkshire.   Regards--A Y Arktos\talk 11:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not watching your edits - I have tangled with the Wellington college pages before despite never having been to NZ, nor I think Berkshire - well certainly not the college in Berkshire anyway. But for tangling before nad for a reason I can't remember, these pages are on my watchlist.  Perhaps I am being over the top, and I do note you are an NZer so more likely to be inclined the other way, but I think consequence is a bit ...  Perhaps I am just feeling for the antipodean proletariat at the moment.  If somebody else wants the moves to happen, then I don't feel that strongly about it, but the argument (not yours) that all the other school in Berkshire follow this format isn't compelling:-) --A Y Arktos\talk 11:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

AGS Old Boys
I don't see the rationale behind only having a select few old boys on the list. It is certainly out of line with other countries lists, such as this one for Charterhouse List_of_notable_Old_Carthusians. I especially don't know how you could say that the author of one of NZ's most significant economic transformations, or an All Black captain, is not notable... I didn't go to AGS, in fact they were a traditional rival, but it is a famous and successful school, I feel it should be given its dues. 124.197.21.14 13:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * IPs are sometimes dynamic, so I'll reply here
 * The thing is, AGS is no Charterhouse, and that AGS' claim to fame is its notoriety and age (fwiw). Perhaps of the NZ schools only Kings is comparable to the English public schools, but even then some care would need to be taken. Of course industrialists etc are notable. But are the names being added to the list simply because they are notable, or because they can represent what the school has produced? That last sentence was a bit ambiguous (since the two statements sound largely the same), but I take the position that a name list should serve the latter purpose, and a small-to-medium size list would sufficiently capture the fact that former pupils have distinguished themselves. Mr Bluefin 23:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I take your point that AGS is not comparable to English public schools. Clearly the 3 good Anglican schools - King's, Christ's and Wanganui Collegiate are the most akin to the English public schools in terms of being fee paying and Anglican.


 * However that argument doesn't really take into account the New Zealand environment where (perhaps because of our lack of 'class structure') a few state schools are perceived as equals, if not superiors to private schools. Namely AGS, Wellington COllege and perhaps not anymore, but in the past, Nelson College.  These may not charge fee's, but they are certainly regarded by a great many people as being New Zealand's elite schools.  When you have people on million dollar incomes choosing a state school for their child's education I think you can fairly say that it is an equal to a private school.


 * But although I rant, the point isn't actually th notability of the school itself. The point is about the notablity of the old boys.  I don't think the purpose of putting them there is merely to indicate that notable people went to the school.  Notable people have been to almost every school, you could just say "notable people went to this school"!  If you look around the UK and Australian school pages it does appear to be a little bit of bragging, and so long as we make sure that these people are truly notable, I don't see what is wrong with that.  In many respects the calibre of the alumni relates to 1. the type of person who goes to the school 2. the success of the school in educating people and 3. the lenght of time of the schools prominence (i.e has it only just become good, or has it been so for centuries?)


 * I'm of the same opinion, although regarding a different school: Talk:Palmerston North Boys' High School. Z iggurat 00:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Paragraph indenting modified by me so I can keep track of discussions.


 * For sure, 124-197 and Ziggurat. NZ is a weird little country isn't it with millionaires going to state schools :D:D:D, and I respect your reasoning. As the comments left by others further up this page suggest, my edits centred mainly around the trophy-cabinetting that went on in the school pages, making them sound like advertising and "XYZ School is the best school ...", and was my main reason for joining WP in the first place. Meaning, I am naturally suspicious of anything that sounds like image-boosting. That's just me though, and I'm not going to Three Revert-type levels of opposition to edits. While in principle it would be correct to regard a state school as being similar to a private one for educating millionaires' kids, the fact that the majority of pupils even at those schools are ones who would not otherwise be able to receive a private educations means that I believe the less ... "famous" (can't find the right word)... route should be taken.


 * As for the calibre of alumni, I suggest that the reason that the above-named schools have a larger number of notable students stems from the fact that they are in the centres of urban areas, and naturally take elites, and obviously have easier access to funds. I mean, if you scoop your hand in a bucket of lollies then you would naturally expect some to be the fancy kind, and in a bigger bucket there should be more fancy lollies (argument being that cities' wealth distributions are not linear cities have greater concentrations of wealth Mr Bluefin 11:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC) ).


 * On a tangent: comparing to "if and only if" statements would be useful: sure, the fact that social elites go to State School X means the school has an elite image, but does the fact that School X has an elite image mean that that is really has elite students? I would say no, and to portray a school as being elite for educating a small amount of said social elites would ignore the other reality that the majority of students are not.


 * (New Zealand, with its small population and developed media, probably makes a bigger proportion of its population "famous", though that's an opinion I won;t take anywhere; though it might be useful in undetstanding the above.)


 * Not withstanding the above, I would say that name lists should be expanded if the names are truly notable.


 * So in summary the reputations of some of the inner city state schools is because of its social surroundings, and not mainly due to any great effort on the schools' part.


 * Apologies if my reply was a bit too verbose! Mr Bluefin 11:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Hi, just wanted to say sorry for calling you a jerk on my talk page. I was just frustrated after having an entire article of mine deleted. --SilvaStorm

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay
Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics.  Schwede 66  09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)