You have recently recreated or reposted material at Praht Thai School which previously was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not recreate this page without prior approval from an administrator or you may be blocked from editing. We ask that you respect what Wikipedia is not. If you disagree with the page's deletion, you may seek an independent deletion review. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internationalised curriculum for details. -- Calton | Talk 13:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It appears our schools article is being crosswired with the Internationalised Curriculum article. Though we strongly disagree with its deletion, it seems to be a real sore point with a few editors so we will let that slip by for now and the pubblic can remain in the dark on that issue. This is our school however and has no content that is advertising any more than any other school we have seen on Wikipedia. We ask your support in defusing this issue as it seems to be totally based on the "it was deleted before so get rid of it" line of thinking...and worse it was deleted before because it was being linked to the Int Curr article. PTSch ( talk) 13:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Once again, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internationalised curriculum for details. If you still disagree, go to this page and follow the instructions to appeal the decision. -- Calton | Talk 13:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Catton Thanks for your response. I do disagree with that deletion but will leave that for another time. This is not the same site and we have removed all reference links to the curriculm page which is gone now so it should all be fine. Again your assistance in editing if it needs would be valued. PTSch ( talk) 13:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Praht Thai School. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place {{ hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 13:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I have added the hangon command to the page as required Thanks PTSch ( talk) 20:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

By the way I do not know what a sockpuppet is but Mr Aristo is one of our web development programmers and originally recommended Wikipedia as a quote 'wonderful international resource' - he has since become somewhat dissillusioned I might say. This account is a private account sanctioned by the school to take over from Mr Aristo who apparently wants nothing to do with the matter any further - so someone here has done a good job of dissuading a previously keen supporter and a very talented professional person PTSch ( talk) 20:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

A sockpuppet is an account created by an editor or group of editors to inappropriately edit Wikipedia. In this case, separate accounts have been created to re-create the same deleted page. Note that that is accounts created for the same disruptive purpose, not accounts created by the same person. Please stop re-creating the page. Michaelbusch ( talk) 22:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Are you kidding ??? What disruptive purpose? Creating a school Page? Disruptive to who? This penalty based editorial role you have taken on is strange. Not one editor has 'edited' anything. All we have seen is delete - block - parry - thrust- elete - block that is about it so far. Consensus...must be a different for on it from how I unnderstand the concept. Speaks volumes about how the Wikiworld will ultimately represent itself. "Wikipedia... changing the world?" Well perhaps that really means changing the world the way a few editors will have it be....that is quite different. Please stop deleting the page.

Well we don't do that end of story We have put a page up and you guys got it confused with another page and as I see YET AGAIN - despite us doing what we are told to do eg Hangon etc etc editing as nauseum etc etc...off it goes. One of you has deleted it. This is craziness and plainly unfair and it appears there is nothing we can do about it, How totally unfair and uncalled for. PTSch ( talk) 06:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Please stop. There has been no confusion: the page on Praht Thai School has been repeatedly removed and you/the other involved accounts keep putting it back. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia you will be blocked. Michaelbusch ( talk) 07:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It is removed for the same WRONG REASON and you keep missing that. It was marked for deletion but then editor FisherQueen stated that it should not be as he had marked it I understand due to the inclusion of the Internationalised Curriculum link WHICH WAS DULY REMOVED!

Yes I read your threat to BLOCK the school but you cannot be a serious editor if that is the only solution to this issue.

There are a list of schools on WIKI ...will you block them too here is a list for you to block delete or whatever you think is appropriate. I reiterate the article listing was deleted in ERROR and that is that - it has since been deleted simply because it was previously deleted. You may block my access but you can not block the fact that this is simply an error that just keeps being made. Please do not continue this path it is far from constuctive - I draw attention to the Wiki guidelines:

• Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

Sensible words indeed....and cearly ignored by the editing group so far. PTSch ( talk) 08:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Logo Office1.png, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Logo Office1.png was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Logo Office1.png, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot ( talk) 07:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, sorry for the problems at Praht Thai School. Have you heard of deletion review? I suggest you take the issue there, it's where you go to discuss articles that were deleted after discussion but that you think shouldn't have been deleted. Since wikipedia works by consensus, it's not allowed to just repost an article that's been deleted after discussion, since that's going against the community's decision. If you keep doing that, it will keep getting deleted, and you'll eventually be blocked for disruption. However, wikipedia works by discussion, so you should explain your reasons for wanting to keep the article at deletion review. You may want to familiarize yourself with wikipedia's notability guidelines, so you can explain to others why this school is different from every other school and therefore merits an article. The single most important thing that people will look at is your references: really, every sentence other than the patently obvious should be backed up by a reliable source such as a newspaper article. Anything that cannot be referenced should not be in Wikipedia. I recommend that you find a bunch of reliable sources and use them to support your argument that the school is notable and deserves an article. Don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need anything, I'm always glad to help. Peace, delldot talk 08:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi delldot and thank you for your comments. I had not heard of the rdeletion review as we are new to this but I do thank you for that information. I will act through there if the editor group looking at this matter delete again - I hope not. I have posted a number of reference sites on my user talk page as when some reference sited were posted by one of our staff members on another article they were deleted and blocked as a user for 'adding external links' ...so we shyed away. We are looking for as well as generating a host of reliable articles we can refer to (but not too sure how to refer to them as per my previous comment)and will continue to post as we find them. In the meantime, I have seen a list of over 50 schools in our area (Thailand) listed on Wiki with full articles no different to ours and no references at all to refer to and that makes me very concerned ...they are on (List of Schools In Thailand) of whcih some 30 + are listed onWikioppedia with articles but are totally left alone...we on the other habd seem to have been targeted.

The consensus approach is ideal except we have an issue where it seems 1 or 2 interested parties are doing all the damage and they too ignore comments by others including a comment I saw from an independant user in support of our case and a comment from an editor - FisherQueen - who was injecting, as you are, some sense into the matter by highlighting that the original notice of speedy deletion may have been unecessary as it related to the article in the curriculum which was deleted (and we will dispute through the process you informed us of). He suggested some changes were needed to clean uo the article and Wikift it I guess and we responded to his call to make changes and did so diligently, Result; one of the two editors who somehow seem to have something against us, went ahead with the deletion regardless of the discussion. Little, or should I correctly say, no consensus.

Thank you once again and we will remain calm on this issue and diligently seek the additions to continue to make this article more substantial (notable I believe is the term) as quickly as we can but I reiterate that on that score I feel we are miles in front of the 30 odd schools from Thailand who are on Wiki and seem to be unquestionably accepted. I really hope that the deletion option willbe removed in favour of assisting us to make this a solid listing. Thanks...it is appreciated PTSch ( talk) 08:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

WELL There you go....in the time it took me to write a reply the site was deleted AGAIN!!!! How much aggro do these guys - acting alone = want to cause? I remain calm but for how long? PTSch ( talk) 08:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, sorry it was deleted again, but that's going to happen until you go through the proper channels to get it undeleted, i.e. deletion review (DRV for short).

Hm, I wonder why those references you posted didn't work. Did you have a look at the reliable source guideline to see if they are reliable? Generally, if they're from a mainstream news source, that would be considered reliable. Websites may not be as reliable because they may not be subject to editorial review, depending on what they are. If you're ever not sure abuout a site, you can suggest the link on the article's talk page for others to review. In this case, of course, I'd suggest keeping a list here on your user talk page or on a subpage of your user page (any page beginning with User:PTSch/; this is your "userspace"), and then providing the list in the DRV. An advantage of using a subpage of your userpage is that you can keep the deleted contents there and work on it to improve it, adding the references in as in-line citations, and you can address any other concerns about the article. For example, it's important that all articles are neutral in tone and do not sound like advertisements, so you can make sure to address any of those concerns.

I doubt your article is being targeted per se, someone just happened to notice it. The other schools you mention are likely to be deleted as well when someone notices them and puts them up for AFD.

My suggestion would be to carefully read the directions at WP:DRV and make sure you understand them, and then to explain your case listing your reliable sources at DRV. Let me know if you need help. Peace, delldot talk 09:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks again for your valued comments and offers of assistance.

It is all sounding like a lot of work. Maybe that is intended to keep us simple folk out of it ;).

The article references were to links of articles available online from papers published by universities and Govt depts around the globe disucssing the need for, the introduction of, structuring of and form of an INternationalised Curriculum in various contexts around the world. For the last two years the issue of Internationalised Curriculum has been, and still is, a hot topic in education. At this rate it will be a historical article beofre Wiki sees it. I don't think we put the Praht Thai School article online to have a battle with the defacto 'controllers' of Wikipedia. Young and ambitious grads or nearly grads in the main it seems. The 'Help Wikipedia change the world' concept...change it according to the wishes of a few it appears.

FYI List of schools in Thailand has 42 Wiki Listed schools out of the total list who have pages safely tucked on Wiki.....

Yes I know I am sounding cynical but maybe its just a bad day...thanks for your kindness will regroup thoughts and do what we of such little power can. Cheers PTSch ( talk) 09:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, sorry about all the process. It's the only way we can achieve harmony with the many different editors we have though, so we have to have standards and processes. I'm glad to help if you need any guidance with the process. But everything does need to be compulsively referenced, that's a very fundamental rule. I may be going to bed now, so leave me a note on my talk page if you want to continue the discussion, that way I'll be sure to see it. Peace, delldot talk 10:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry if you're finding it difficult to do what you want. There's a reason for that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia- it isn't a forum for people to advertise their businesses. Pick up any encyclopedia, and you won't expect it to be a catalog of every business in the world, right? We have rules, like the notabability criteria (which requires that all articles be about an important subject), the conflict of interest guidelines (which requests that no one write an article about themselves or their business), and the verifiability policy (which requires that every article be verified by reliable sources). We get hundreds of people every day who want to create an advertisement here for their businesses, without caring about writing a high-quality encyclopedia, and those rules keep us from becoming just a big collection of ads. Those are the rules which, right now, you're not following. Yes, doing it right is much harder than doing it badly, but considering that doing it badly means getting articles deleted, doing it right is still easier in the long run. New users and experienced users are held to the same standards- I'm an administrator and have been here for years, but when I create a new article, I still add reliable sources and try hard to write in a neutral tone, because I know that my new article will be reviewed by other users and that many new articles are tagged for deletion when they don't meet the basic criteria. Of course, I've never created an article about a business, because I wouldn't write about my own business, and I haven't yet looked up a business I thought was important and found no existing article. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 11:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for taking the trouble to write.

1. The article on Praht Thai was not written by Praht Thai or its controllers but the person who submitted it was barred it seems so that removes that conflict issue first off. We just tried to reinstate because we didn't believe what we were being told. By the way the person you all got so tough on Mr Aristo - ArisB- is an acclaimed professor and academician who has studied and become enthralled by the work done with both the IC and PTS and one who now considers Wikipedia in a very poor light it is sad to note. To ban him was to lose a very valuable resource for Wikipedia. I think he will not bother to return to any form of contribution. Wikipedia's and the world's loss.
2. Notability? Notable means getting a newpaper article (these are usually accompanid by paid for advertising so that is easy but fake) In any case we have submitted many supporting pieces that were all ignored. These included Univerity articles, commuity and government articles and references. Surely notabilty on a school is that is does in fact exist. Particularly as you list so many and assessments of better or worse are subjective.
3. Business Listing? check List of schools in Thailand and go through the 42 schools - YES 42 - that you HAVE allowed and then tell me all this again? Sorry it just doesn't stack up.Someone just doesn't like us but that is ok.
4. Pick up any encyclopaedia? The world changes and so does the nature of information. By virtue of its delivery and target audiences it changes. Comparison to the old chool of Brittanica hardly applies to Wikipedia today. Most of your editors are under 25 yeas old and some of their comments that I have read on their profile pages show the immaturity and narrow views many of them have. They may be potential for the future but they are out of balance today and this episode shows it.
5. Doing it right? The article satisfies almost all criteria required as I keep pointing out. I consider it well written and well balanced. Suggestions and edits for improvement have always been invited but never given except in a 'read this policy' link form. As I pointed out nobody seems to care about the Wikipedia advice to editors that discourages AfD as an action of last resort and to be reserved until something is total unsalvagable. You guys go for it as first option. That is NOT policy no matter how you seek to dress it. Nobody gave us redress option. Decide - advise of deletion - delete. That was it. Every time. It's a game.

I don't wish to continue an academic debate of to-and-fro because mine are just words to be derided and refuted with a new argument - I dont have editorial control and you guys are like a posse all set to 'watch' Praht Thai in case it gets reposted again...so you can delete and block. Such power to decide what people get to see...mmmm... I'm sure you can guess my views on that. It sounds like a lot of people with a lot of time on their hands. This debate here alone illustrates how futile the issue is. Insted of taking articles and assisting in their upgrading (as per Wiki policy guidelines) the editor-force is dedicated to seek and delete missions....its like a computer game....sockpuppet talk...ip address blocking...deleting ... threatening to block - really all in the interest of editing quality? I dont think so. Power is self corrupting even if that power destroys only one reference work Wikipedia.

You say you are a teacher? Then you should check on the 'Business ' aspect of a school. It is a poor business to be in if that is your motive and if you cared to look at and into the curriculum programme we run you might even get excited. We are and the Wikipedia wet blanket treatment and cynical comments will do little to dampen our commitment to a significant change in the education scene globally. This has become a negative association when it started out as such a positive project with simple aims and a simple admiration for Wikipedia. That has dissipated fast. I actually thought you would be a more positive supporter of matters we faced judging from your recent comments and I submitted as such. Clearly I was mistaken.

So finally will these articles any or all of them be allowed to be repostd or alternatively are you planning to decimate the entire school and institutions sections of Wikipedia now that your precedent has been set. I certainly will follow that with great interest. PTSch ( talk) 13:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry that we're still not communicating clearly. If you think the notability guidelines or the reliable sources guidelines are not working and should be rewritten, that conversation should happen at the talk pages for those guidelines. But if you just want an article about this school on Wikipedia, that can happen simply by adding two or three reliable independent references to the article. As an educator, I'm sure you are familiar with the academic standard that requires research writing to be cited to reliable sources. That's the same standard we have here. If no one has written about this school in any way, then probably the school simply isn't notable yet. That's okay; maybe it will become more notable in future years, and then one of its supporters will create an article about it. If you are aware of sources that we could cite, simply adding those sources will be easier and more effective than long comments about why we are unreasonable to apply our usual standards to this article. It doesn't really help to compare this article to other articles; I haven't reviewed every article on Wikipedia about a school yet, and some of them may well need to have their sources improved or else to be deleted. That doesn't really have anything to do with the question of whether this school meets the notability criteria. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 21:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I invited you to add two or three reliable independent sources to the article, but it has been deleted. Have you requested undeletion at deletion review yet? That's the place to offer the sources, so you can show that this school is a notable one. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 21:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Each school on Wikipedia is judged on it's own merits. It appears that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internationalised curriculum felt that in this case the school didn't warrant an article. This does not indicate that all schools will be deleted. You can appeal the deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review and the instructions are at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Instructions. If you need assistance then I will be happy to help you. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply