Jump to content

Talk:Concordia College (South Australia)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use rationale for Image:Malvern Gorilla.png

[edit]

Image:Malvern Gorilla.png 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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ConcordiaLogo.gif

[edit]

Image:ConcordiaLogo.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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem was addressed by User:MBisanz 18:31, 18 February 2008 (adding FUR using FURME)

Revamp March 2008

[edit]

User talk:Loopla has significantly improved the article, however:

  • Minor problem - Yrs 7-10 inclusive follow the IBMYP. To say "students from Year 10 follow the curriculum mandated by the Senior Secondary Assessment Board of South Australia" is not correct. (Yes, I know, it doesn't quite say that.) I'm considering presenting Yr 10 separately from Yr 11-12. Anyone have any thoughts on the matter?
  • I think it's necessary to say something about SA secondary being Yr 8-12, and Concordia's addition of yr7 is new (less than 5 years ago) and although not unusual, is not common practice in SA. (yet!)

Pdfpdf (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia pictures

[edit]

Looking at Image:ConcordiaCollege1905.jpg and Image:ConcordiaGym1921.jpg, I question whether the 1921 photo is of the same building.

Regarding the 1905 picture, that building was constructed in the 19th century (see Annesley College), and was well established by 1905. The left wing (the photographer is looking south, so it is the east wing) was either built before, or at the same time as, the west wing, and the old Chapel is to the east of that. I'm not sure when the old chapel (now called the Suaviter) was built, but it was well before 1921.

Ignoring the east wing, if you look closely at the two photos, you can see significant differences between them. Is the 1905 picture a photo or a drawing? If it's a drawing, that could explain the differences, (but not the east wing!)

Comments? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These photographs are of the same building (neither are drawings). As you identified, ConcordiaGym1921.jpg shows the east wing. This wing was built after the original building to match it. The Chapel/Suaviter was built after both of these photographs, as shown in The local records.
The very right part of the building in the 1921 photograph is the far eastern end of the 1921 building. Hooligantelephone (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Student Leadership

[edit]

...is not mentioned on the vast majority of School pages. Where it is, it goes against consensus guidelines at WP:SCHOOLS (WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI). If you're going to insist that long standing practice be changed, then gain consensus first. -danjel (talk to me) 10:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case you hadn't noticed, (obviously you hadn't looked or thought), this page HAS the consensus of the people who are maintaining it. So please bugger-off and, if you must, go waste other people's time. We who maintain this page are perfectly happy with it like it is. You are a fly-by pedant who likes picking fights. As has been pointed out to you a number of times by other editors (not me) on other pages (not here) where you fly by and make a nuisance of yourself, it you are going to remove stuff that has been there for a LONG time, you had better have a better reason than "I'm right this time". I am not going to discuss this any further with you, so there is NO point in you replying. However, I have absolutely NO doubt that you will reply. Therefore I advise you now, I couldn't care less what you think, and I will NOT be responding. In case my message wasn't clear, I'll state it again: Please go away and either get a life, or waste somebody else's time. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attacks. Could you please point me to where consensus was gained in regards to a breach of several policies and guidelines, including the ones below? -danjel (talk to me) 11:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I could. But, as usual, you didn't read what I wrote: I am not going to discuss this any further with you. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as "no I can't". -danjel (talk to me) 11:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Mandy Rice-Davies: You would, wouldn't you.
You can take it however you want. Anybody with half-a-brain would have worked out by now that I really don't care what you say, because it bears NO relationship to any reality that exists outside of your mind.
Your implied question is: "Does that mean you can't?"
My answer to that is, "No, of course it doesn't! What it means is that you are a time waster, and I am no longer willing to have you waste any more of my time." Pdfpdf (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your combative attitude and unwillingness to discuss with Danjel do not strengthen your position. They only weaken it. Cunard (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concerned comment. Seriously, I appreciate your concern. But it would appear to me that you are unfamiliar with Danjel. I have wasted MANY hours being polite to Danjel, with no result. Danjel is a time-waster who goes off half-cocked and does NOT get his facts straight. I'm no longer willing to have him waste my time. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll point to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL again. I note that you've removed the previous warning (as is your right per: WP:USERTALK), so I've placed a firmer warning on your talk page at [[1]]. -danjel (talk to me) 11:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I'm almost certain that it breaches a whole bunch of policies and guidelines, including, but not limited to:
-danjel (talk to me) 11:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Listing non-notable students on Wikipedia falls afoul of the above policies and guidelines, as well as Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:BLPSOURCES. This information does not belong in the article. Cunard (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Cunard. Thanks for your input. Does what you say mean that lists of Prefects and/or Head Prefects are contrary to policy? Awaiting your reply. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If no reliable sources cover the list of prefects, then such a list is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Thanks for your reply. I need to think about it. Cheers (and good night), Pdfpdf (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur entirely with Cunard on two points:

  • The list(s) of persons as proposed have no place in this article or any other school article on Wikipedia.
  • Insulting behaviour does not reinforce anyone's arguments.

I will further add that I detect distinct tones of WP:OWN claims of ownership of this article. --Kudpung (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kudpung,
Insulting behaviour does not reinforce anyone's arguments. - Danjel is a long term nuisance.
1) If you re-read my comments, you will see that conversation with any & every one other than Danjel is extremely WP:CIVIL
2) I'm not making any arguments on this topic with Danjel. If you re-read my comments, you will see that I am VERY deliberately NOT discussing the matter with him.
3) I will further add that I detect distinct tones of WP:OWN claims of ownership of this article. - Ah ha. So what? i.e. What's your point? And how is it relevant to the fact that Danjel is a long term nuisance?
4) In fact, to what is your comment relevant?
As I have said to Danjel, I am no longer willing to waste time on him. I say the same to you: I am no longer willing to waste time discussing Daniel's warped view of reality.
On the other hand, as I have said to Cunard on his talk page, I am quite happy to discuss the topic with any and everybody else.
However, as both you & Cunard seem to have made reasonable and rational arguments to the effect that "it shouldn't be there", AND you have provided specific and relevant supporting evidence, I don't see any point in me continuing to argue otherwise. Would you agree?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? Where you told me to "please bugger off" [[2]], just as one example, you were being "extremely WP:CIVIL"? -danjel (talk to me) 13:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only because you asked: Yes, I am extremely serious. Please bugger off. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Signing off for the night.

I can only echo some of the comments above. Pdfpdf, please do remember to comment on content not on editors. Also, please remember to assume good faith. If you are consistently having an issue with an editor, despite discussion with him, the right place to bring that up is at an WP:RFC/U. The wrong thing to do is to categorically dismiss everything he has said, and imply ownership of the article. Danjel, I do have to say you're not in the right here either, I see a bit of baiting - so do think about what you do and what you're saying. And to both of you, don't edit war, it won't help!

Regarding the issue at hand, I don't believe that a list of head pupils is notable enough for the article, unless there's a good reason to that I'm missing. Worm 14:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason to ignore our guidelines. The list doesn't belong here and could have BLP problems. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

[edit]

Now you have your consensus - was it worth all the nastiness? User:Worm has said some words of wisdom. Just a gentle reminder that any uninvolved editor seeing this page can escalate a civility issue. Both editors already have histories of not being too polite around the encyclopedia. The outcome is often for both combattants to be topic banned, or even blocked for a while. --Kudpung (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Concordia College (South Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concordia_College_(South_Australia)&oldid=1205040776"