Talk:Bert Potter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.


[edit] Copyvio

This was a copyvio (I discovered after I rewrote most of it) from http://reward.co.nz/c-files.asp?ID=1844.

We should check that the whole thing is now clear of copyright. I amde a lot of changes but we shoudl check the differrences and make sure I got it all. RJFJR 19:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I have copyedited the whole thing now, should be okay. Jdcooper 03:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming other people involved

I agree that these people shouldn't necessarily be linked, but surely naming his co-defendants and victims is informative and relevant? It can't hurt to include these names? Jdcooper (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Just adding non-notable names that have no reference and mean nothing to people who don't already know them is neither adding information nor relevant. Nor does it add information for the people who already know them. This is just wasting space in Wikipedia --Geronimo20 (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
if someone came here wanting to learn about the Centerpoint affair then knowing the names of the people involved is clearly informative. Since providing information for people who want to learn about specific topics is pretty much the fundemental purpose of any encyclopaedia, then it is relevant as well. "Wasting space" is not an issue here, because wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. Jdcooper (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes I guess it's not so much wasting space as wasting the reader's time with irrelevancies. A casual google search suggests that non of these people, apart possibly from Sarah Smuts-Kennedy, come anywhere near meeting Wikipedia's criteria for "notability". If they are to be included then they should not be red-linked since this implies that they are "notable".--Geronimo20 (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but notability guidelines are for articles, not for related and relevant information connected to a topic. Definitely no red-links, for sure, and we don't need to put the extraneous sentencing details of his co-defendants, but could you tolerate the naming of Smuts-Kennedy and a couple of the other key figures in the case? Jdcooper (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that seems fine to me --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kahikatea Eco Art Village

Anahata alas is no more and a new community unified under the founding principles of sustainable living and creation of art is forming.

On the 13th of February 2008 Kahikatea had 32 long term adult residents and 7 children living co-operatively in the now ruins of the former commune.

The greatest threat to Kahikatea Village is the likely June sale of the property by the trustee. On Tuesday the 12th of February 2008 the local newspaper, the North Shore Times Advertiser reported that the North Shore City council is interested in purchasing the property.Nick Shand (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)