Talk:Lincoln College (University of Adelaide)

	Australia portal Lincoln College (University of Adelaide) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

What's going on?!

So first,

i get deleted! (WTF Blnguyen??) then i get put back (thanks ABVS1936 for putting me back - alex?)

and then Geni deletes everything Simon and i, and others worked to create...the lists, the little descriptions on what we did...and the Eagle rock trivia!!!

honestly, if our website can't be like it was, why doesn't Geni go clean up Mark's and Aquinas' sites.

Very disappointed.

someone from lincoln tell june that we're not happy.

Ken. 14/3/2007

No probs Ken. It was extremely disappointing to see the info that so many had worked so hard to get together for the Wiki be deleted by an over-zealous editor, rather than discussing it here or simply reverting it. Glad to see it's all back up, and in, hopefully, a more editor-friendly format. Though I do think that both the Mark's and Aquinas pages are rather acceptable as Wiki pages - I've been actively involved in editing both pages, as well as the Lincoln page, and now think that all three pages are worthwhile additions to the Wiki. ABVS1936 11:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted another serious page edit - I dunno what exactly these guys have against Lincoln... ABVS1936 11:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted?

What has happened to this page? It seems to have been reverted, but there is no evidence of changes etc. There were numerous contributions added since September. ABVS1936 05:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geni deleted them. So they are only visible to admins. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm ok, is there a reason for that? Would just like to know, as I have made a number of contribs to the page. Cheers. ABVS1936 06:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He cited copyvio [1] - normally, I just remove the copyvio bits and revert to non-copyvio. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I don't understand (sorry, kinda new to this stuff) - was there a copyright violation? Most, if not all, of the information that was included in that article was added by people either attending Lincoln College, or other Colleges in North Adelaide. Was deletion requested at all? I never noticed any request on the Talk, History or Article pages. I'd move that the page be restored. ABVS1936 06:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps ask him where the text came from. I'd guess the college's website. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, On the 18th and 19th of December I amde a number of changes to the Lincoln College website. This was intended to display the true merits of the college as a 'home away from home' where I have immensely enjoyed living for the past three years. The work was entirely my own apart from a few snippets of information taken from the College website.

I am disgusted and immensely upset that the User Geni has reverted the page to its present form. This does nothing for the college and several pieces of information are inflammatory and offensive...

I have attempted to discuss this matter with Geni however, he is content to dismiss my explanations as violations of copyright. He asked me for the source of my description of the meal served at international night as "exotic". Exotic means that the meal is from a foreign country. The meals served on the night are foreign in their origin and may be referred to as such. How is this a violation of copyright laws Please revert the page to form it was in after I modified it.

this is not the Lincoln College website. This is meant to be an encycopedia article.Geni 03:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could the User Geni, please explain how in its present form the article is encyclopaedic- it is full of derogatory and inflammatory comments about individuals eg "matt (farting machine) hauser.

As I had the page it was encyclopaedic

Geni, why revert the WHOLE article if only PART of it is unencyclopedic, or a violation of copyright? This just doesn't make sense. As was stated above, a few very dedicated people have added alot of information to this page over the last few months, and it has just been torn up in their faces. Please consider restoring this page, or I'm afraid the matter will be taken further, i.e. to arbitration. ABVS1936 09:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copying and pasting from the college website is not helpful. The stuff I removed wither contained copyvios or contained derivatives of copyvios.Geni 12:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can information added by people from their own observations and experiences POSSIBLY be a violation of copyright? This doesn't make sense! I can tell you with 100% percent certainty that none of the information that I added personally violated any copyrights. So Geni, my suggestion to you is this: why not restore the article to it's former glory, then remove ONLY the material tha tviolates copyright? That way, those who have contributed their knowledge to the article are happy, you will be happy, and Wikipedia will not have lost an informative and interesting article.ABVS1936 00:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information from your own observations is not allowed under Wikipedia:No original research.Geni 11:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However I have had another look at the history and have restored up to the 14th of December. After that point the copvios become to thick on the ground for the text to be usable.Geni 11:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be mention of the spy cameras found at the college? You know, the ones set up to record the girls showering? I mean it was quite major right? It made national news?

To who ever made the above comment, I think that what you're implying by adding the sentence "the ones set up to record the girls..." is highly unnecesary. Further, how about signing your comments as well, and showing some respect instead of just trying to get a rise. ABVS1936 05:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm only semi familiar with the case, was what I wrote incorrect? Signed Alfie

Social Sec. 2005

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Ken Lim social sec in 2005? I've edited to include this, but I could be wrong - though I don't go to Lincoln, I thought Kenny organised the Battle of the Bands 2005, and that the social sec did this. Cheers, ABVS1936 03:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Camera link

To whoever keeps adding the link to the Hidden Camera article, please include some information in the actual article refering to the hidden camera found in the bathrooms at Lincoln - without this information IN THE ACTUAL ARTICLE the link you are supplying is useless, as I have stated A NUMBER OF TIMES. If this keeps being added, the mater will be directed to senior editors, and you can deal with them. I'm not sure what you wish to achieve by continuously adding the link when it is removed, but without relevant info in the article, the link makes no sense. What ever your reasons, try adding some info to the article, and the link wont keep getting removed. Cheers, ABVS1936 03:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an affliction among WP editors whereby any material that is sourced is considered sacred and untouchable. I disagree - things have to be notable and relevant. That some creep put a webcam in the showers is neither, tabloid headlines notwithstanding.--Yeti Hunter 04:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality heads-up

You may be aware that the St Mark's College page was recently nominated for deletion (the result was keep). As a result of the nomination, many references were added and a significant amount of "cruft" removed in order to ensure the page complied with Wikipedia's guidelines (WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTE specifically). The other SAAUCC pages do with much of the same sort of cleaning up if they are to avoid problems like this too, as they are presently less referenced and more crufty than the St Mark's page was prior to the AfD. Happy to help if someone at the college can point me in the direction of sources.--Yeti Hunter 04:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four months on and the page has barely changed, still has no references other than the Hidden Camera links and the College Website, and is still chockas with cruft and unencyclopaedic material. May I suggest that the following be deleted:

"spews" and harassment allegations regarding the Stag publication. Uncited, and unnecessary.
Where collegians drink. Uncited, unnecessary.
Where collegians eat after drinking, same reason.
When collegians drop their pants, same reason.
List of past College Club presidents. These are all non-notable indivicuals, and their inclusion in this article is not necessary. Also uncited.
Hidden Camera Incident - Not relevant to college, merely an isolated incident.

Please let me know if you think my reasoning is flawed. This article desperately needs a cleanup.--Yeti Hunter 02:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lincoln College Logo.gif

Image:Lincoln College Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]