User talk:Five Years/Archive 10

This is Archive #10 for User talk:Five Years

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalise an old topic, bring it up on User talk:Five Years.

5
6
7
8
9
Archive 10
11
12
13
14
15
20

Inconsistency[edit]

I am sick of the inconsistencies here! Take a look at the differences between Barton Ministry and Fourth Howard Ministry. Even First Howard Ministry, Second Howard Ministry, Third Howard Ministry and Fourth Howard Ministry are not set out exactly the same. I have fixed the first ten years of 19xx in Australia. Auroranorth 13:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation of school by city.[edit]

see Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Appropriate_categorisation_-_should_there_be_.27Category:Schools_in_city.27 Paul foord 01:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redlands College[edit]

Might be worth keeping an eye on this one. Orderinchaos 04:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Service Awards[edit]

I don't want to make you look silly, but your service award isn't entirely true. You have served on Wikipedia for less than a year ([1]), therefore you're only eligible for the Journeyman editor award. On 21 November you can go up one level. See here. Sorry! Auroranorth 14:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you declare them - you don't want to be accused of sockpuppetry. Remember, 1 November I can edit in school articles again! Auroranorth 14:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.L.C Sydney[edit]

Hey Twenty Years, Thanks! There are a couple of things I want to fix up before its put up for GA. Will do it now. Cheers! Loopla 07:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made a few changes..things i've been meaning to do for a while. If you think its worthy of GA then I would certainly like to try. I'm not really sure what to do so could you put it up? Thanks. Loopla 15:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:AusEd[edit]

Template:AusEd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Rocket000 03:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it per CSD G6 (housekeeping) following your delete vote. Orderinchaos 04:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

Well done! You have served out your probation period and can now create as many new pages as you like (within reason)! On 1 November you and I will be powering up WikiProject Education in Australia and the education articles will skyrocket. My probation ends soon and I will be voting on XfD, RfA, anything I like in the project namespace. You can get rid of all those sandboxes now! Well done again, and good luck! Auroranorth 12:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness for little SineBot. I am trying to get Speers Point, New South Wales to GA status, but no luck yet! Note the signature: Auroranorth 12:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was extremely strange. SineBot signed yours but not yet mine! Auroranorth 12:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it has to be on someone else's page (hint, hint) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auroranorth (talk • contribs) 12:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There we go. Auroranorth 12:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I replied there. Auroranorth 12:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for that PR listing. I have added it to my watchlist. Auroranorth 13:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. Auroranorth 13:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on the peer review, I will get to work right away. Are you impressed by the number of references? I was surprised myself. Auroranorth 13:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Auroranorth 13:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bars for the political parties; I can't do that as it's on a different computer. Will do it soon. Auroranorth 13:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, take a look at the article now, it has been improved following your suggestions. Auroranorth 13:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like the references there? Auroranorth 14:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Talk:Speers Point, New South Wales now. I compared the article with WP:WIAGA. Auroranorth 12:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headmasters[edit]

ExtraDry has ignored your advice on David Scott (headmaster), in regards "forced" [2] , and his latest edit suggests he may start to replicate his overly long Industrial Relations Dispute page there. When the David Scott info appeared on the Newington College page you removed it as schoolcruft [3] but haven't taken offence to it as an article. Your interest in this page would be appreciated and may help to avert the usual trouble. I'm staying well clear of it but would be pleased if the page could be improved. As for Headmasters in general your about face [4] on John Waterhouse (headmaster) [5] [6] suggests that you no longer think of them as cruft. If this is the case, is it possible to develop a policy on this so we don't have to go through all this again with every headmaster. Maybe your thoughts on William Henry Williams might help to build this. [7] Oh, and given your conversion on Waterhouse should this decision be revised. [8] I'm not having a go at you on this but I'm looking for consistancy and I'm asking you because of your prior involvement and excellent work with other schools. Your opinions seem to be respected by the community and so would carry weight on these issues. Thanks Mitchplusone 11:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of the broader question of the notability of Headmasters where do we go for clarification of this vexed issue? How would Michael Howe (headmaster) do this week given that he now appears to have been a Professor of Classic at the University of Toronto as well? [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchplusone (talk • contribs) 11:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, Newington headmasters are notable. But dont go creating crap articles on all of them, go through one a week or something, but make them good. Help them at AfD if it comes to it. Twenty Years 11:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no cabal![edit]

Apparently, it exists, if someone is 'opposed' to it. [10] Auroranorth 12:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really get the idea of the 'cabal'. Auroranorth 12:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afd mania and Gladesville Public School[edit]

Hi 20yrs, I have noticed that you're on a bit of a roll with Afd-ing schools. Looking through the articles most of them should never have been here, deserve to be circular filed and you're doing well cleaning up the dross. I'm disagreeing on Gladesville as it's old enough unlike many schools has book(s) about it (yeah they may be self published) ... and I reckon that a good article can result. I think I'll lose this one but thankfully the article is so short there's nothing useful that'll be lost. Happy editing - Peripitus (Talk) 00:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 42	15 October 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria	Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files	San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed	Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones	Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.[edit]

I'll join - if there are only the four of you active in the project, you might need help. Thanks! Jame§ugrono_{Contributions} 08:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreaks[edit]

Yay. You've joined the bands of WP:WA members taking Wikibreaks. Auroranorth 11:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite an elite panel. Twenty Years 14:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I was more bored I'd post a "wikibreak" notice on the talk page header for WT:WA. I think it's safe to say the entire project is wikibreaking. Orderinchaos 14:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes. Auroranorth 11:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic economics topics[edit]

Thank you for your feedback on the list. I've expanded the history section based on your comment. It's not done, but please tell me what you think of the coverage so far (it covers up to the industrial revolution). I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 01:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics[edit]

White space is filled. The Transhumanist 02:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Street High School[edit]

Hi Twenty Years, I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind giving us your opinion on the silly alumni list issue at Talk:Fort Street High School#List of alumni. I did a clean-up and made additions to the alumni list, including fixing headings for ToC concerns, putting the headings in some kind of order, putting alumni in alphabetical order, adding refs etc and it has been mostly referted by a user who believes that headings should be in order of notability, so Politics is more notable than science, which is more notable than Business etc. In my opinion it now looks sloppy and ToC is too long, but I dont want to break the 3 revert rule. I may be wrong (although I don't think so haha), so I think we need a third opinion as nobody is going to win this one. Thanks for your time! Loopla 13:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TY when you receive requests like this you need to exercise some care in your responses and try to offer alternative solutions. Taking the stance of the person who invited you can be fraught with problems. Gnan garra 17:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst i appreciate your advice, im not going to change my personal opinion for some two-bit. Twenty Years 12:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Twenty Years, I appreciate you having a look, the reason I asked you was that of those I know, you are pretty much the only editor that always seem to be honest and tends not to take sides (whilst also knowing how to get articles to GA). I know if you thought I had it wrong you would tell me (you've done it before haha). Im just going to leave Fort Street alone from now on..just thought I would try and help out a struggling article with potential but apparently mediocracy is preferred. Will turn my efforts to a more worthy institution. Cheers, and sorry for any criticism you may be getting..I was just looking for an honest third opinion, not someone to take my side. Loopla 06:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

I have not breached WP:NPA. Please point out the precise details of your claim. If you are unclear about what WP:NPA entails, I suggest you read over the page carefully, particularly the bits about what is not a personal attack.

I will remove your groundless accusation from my talk page. If you wish to post the message again, please attach particulars so that I may have the opportunity to refute your claims (if indeed they are groundless as I believe), or reform my behaviour as the case may be.

Again, I advise you not to threaten other users with talk of "the community" or groundless threats of blocks. Neither you nor I speak for the community, and my advice to you is to stay on issue and address the content dispute as such.

Further, I would advise you to curtail such hypocrisy when you openly use offensive language on a talk page. Yes, "fuck" is offensive language even when you replace two of the letters with symbols, my friend. Please cease and desist. Regards, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reguards to your posting of the notice I've looked at the edits by PalaceGuard and see nothing that would warrant a warning diff, reading your use of language when giving your thoughts on the formatting and agree the such a use of language was uncalled for and unhelpful to the situation. Gnan garra 17:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a warning, it was a friendly reminder. Im not trying to be a dick, but in its context it violates no policy. Twenty Years 12:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Mark's College[edit]

You've jumped the gun with your comments on the St Mark's talk page. I actually reverted an edit Yeti Hunter made to a paragraph that you, me, ABVS1936 and Yeti Hunter had reached a consensus with months ago. Please get your facts right before threatening to block me. Username nought 07:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics[edit]

Your objections have been addressed. The Transhumanist 07:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 43	22 October 2007	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens, budget released	Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos"	News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 15:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on other users[edit]

The entirety of that statement was factual. Was the arrangement stable for a long time? Yes it was. Did Loopla change the arrangement? Yes he did. Did his change disturb the arrangement, leading to instability? Yes it did.

You may see nothing wrong with swearing on talk pages - and I have no objection in principle to swearing in appropriate situations - but responding with swearing when you are met with hostile but ratinoal arguments is a cop-out. It's bad form to resort to emotive language of any kind - including swearing - simply because you can't answer arguments. In this case, if you did not wish to debate any further, you could simply have posted "I do not wish to debate any further. I have asked Wikiproject Schools to comment." Cheers, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Just note that I wasn't the first to raise the "disturbing the arrangement" issue.

In any case, the importance ratings of Australian schools needs a systematic look. IMO, the candidates for top importance among NSW schools should be Sydney Grammar School, Shore school, and Pymble Ladies College among private schools, and Fort Street High School, and James Ruse Agricultural High School, and Sydney Boys High School among public schools - for history, academic performance, and vociferousness of alumni respectively. Any which isn't "Top" here should be at least "High". All of the "seven old selective schools" should at least be High - see Selective school (New South Wales)#Debate.

Anyway, that's my opinion, but when I have more time, I would like to contribute to a more systematic examination of "importance" assessment for Australian schools - or at least NSW ones, if that would be welcomed in the Schools Wikiproject. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting - think I'll try it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me[edit]

{{helpme}}. Hey, ive added the help me template to my talk page because i need help with an AfD ive started. Its the second nomination, and ive gone wrong somewhere, here is the link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brunswick South Primary School (2nd nomination)

Gone wrong in what way? It seems like it's properly listed. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think see. Someone fixed it already it would seem. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Peter's College, Adelaide#Emblem[edit]

Hi. (In my POV), "nn" seems a strange reason/justification for deleting this section. It also seems (to me) to be a somewhat subjective judgement. In my POV, the section is interesting and/or informative - notability isn't a relevant criterion here. For example, how/why is the "House system" section notable? (I don't think it is notable). However, I do NOT think the "House system" section should be deleted, and given that you haven't deleted that section, I gather that you also do not think it should be deleted. In other words, I don't follow your reasoning. Perhaps you can enlighten me? Thanks (in anticipation of your enlightening reply). Cheers, Pdfpdf 07:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst i see your point, my issue with something like this is that this is largely built on one interpretation of the image. The motto section is repeated in the infobox, so that is unnescessary duplication. The major issue is sourcing something like this, if the article were to go to FA it probably would need a source. If you can source it, then by all means go for it. Another side issue is that the information is just plain boring, in reality who gives a stuff that the schools emblem has two summounted keys which represent something; a solution to the problem is to sell it to the school, so they can use it in their student handbook. Long story short: It wont help the article get to FA. Twenty Years 13:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm. Very interesting, and yes, I am now enlightened as to your POV. Thank you. I'm not sure where to go from here. I guess my response is something like: "Well yes, but ... "

this is largely built on one interpretation - Well yes, but on the other hand, the image is one visual interpretation of some idea that somebody wanted represented visually ...
The motto section is repeated in the infobox - Well yes, but if you're going to have a section describing/interpreting the image (which includes the motto), then it would be a bit strange not to include the motto ...
The major issue is sourcing something like this - "The major issue". Really? I wouldn't have thought it would be all that difficult to source. (I imagine it might have been copied from their student hanbook!) Perhaps I'm wrong ...
if the article were to go to FA it probably would need a source - I agree.
Another side issue is that the information is just plain boring, in reality who gives a stuff - (Lol!) Well yes, but that's hardly NPOV, and presumably the person who wrote it, (or more likely, copied it), "gives a stuff"! Unfortunately, the "who gives a stuff" criterion probably applies to 99.9% of the article, and indeed to 99.9% of WP, but that doesn't stop either you or me spending hours at our keyboards ...
Long story short: It wont help the article get to FA. - It probably won't hinder it getting there either! ;-) (In any case, "Who gives a stuff" whether it does or doesn't?)

So what? As I said above, "I'm not sure where to go from here". (My primary interest was to understand your reasoning, which I now do. As for me, I don't really have any strong opinion on the subject either way, but I do find it's inclusion informative ...). I shall leave it in your hands. Again, thanks for the explanation. Cheers, Pdfpdf 15:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, i just monitor the article for vandalism and care not one bit, so i might aswell leave it. My POV here is that i got absolutely blasted for writing stuff like this in this article, which was basically the main focus of an essay entitled Aquinascruft, which was later named schoolcruft. It has some mighty funny stuff in the references section, definately worth a look at. Cheers. Twenty Years 15:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, i just monitor the article for vandalism - Largely, so do I, but occasionally I get the uncontrollable urge to "improve" things. (Yes, I know, I need to get a life.) definately worth a look - Thanks. Will do. Cheers, Pdfpdf 15:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow[edit]

Tomorrow's the big day! Auroranorth (sign) 09:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School deletions[edit]

Hello - I notice you have been doing work on school deletions for a long time. While I agree some do need to be deleted as articles in themselves, Wikipedia does have a policy of merging articles like this that don't deserve their own article into the local area. Can I ask that you ask to merge and redirect all these school articles (or whatever is retrievable from them), or at least have a sentence added to their local area articles indicating that the school exists, instead of outrightly deleting them and doing nothing about it? As someone who has been cleaning up after your deletions, I'd certainly appreciate you and others putting in the extra minute's effort and doing some additions to the local area article. (Please reply here, not at my talk page.) JRG 09:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree with what you are saying, school articles deserve a mention in their locality, i personally feel it should be a one-liner mention. The issue is this: no-one seems to notice the merge templates and bother to comment on them, so i feel that AfD is the only way in which i can get the issue across. Apologies for any inconvenience with this issue, and thank you for the note. Twenty Years 13:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC[edit]

Hi Twenty Years, I noticed that you had commented at one of the FACs. Welcome - we can always use more reviewers! You posted directly under User:Leranedo and used his format of "Pass and support." Just so you know, that is not the accepted format, and several of us have been trying to explain this to Leranedo. The guideline wants us all to use "Support" or "Oppose" so there isn't any confusion. Adding "Pass" (or "Reject", as Leranedo also does), can confuse people who are new to the process and make them think that the discussion is over. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks! Karanacs 15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

Thanks for your suggestions. As you can see, I've attempted to act on them by replacing 'keep' with 'comment'. Eyedubya 15:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Schools?[edit]

I recall that in an earlier discussion we had you said something like "Primary Schools are generally nn". However, I see that about 50% of the List of schools in South Australia is red links to Primary Schools. Have you got any knowledge about the rationale behind this? Thanks, Pdfpdf 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. I only spotted one blue link to a Primary School, (Woodend Primary School), and that's a redirect to the "Schools" sub-section of the suburb it's in, but I digress ... ) Pdfpdf 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldnt have a clue. Ive just finished cleaning up Category:Primary schools in Australia and got rid of all the nn ones. My suggestion is basically that remove all the red links, because if the article was going to me made (and is notable) it woulda been made by now. Ive probably AfD'd a few of them. Twenty Years 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds logical/sensible/reasonable. Pdfpdf 16:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source[edit]

With reference to your comments on the Brunswick Primary School deletion debate, could I please suggest you review the wikipedia article on Primary source and the similar one on Secondary source. Note that in the definition of a primary source the wikipedia article states (correctly in my view) that: It refers to creation by the primary players, and is distinguished from a secondary source, which in historical scholarship is a work, such as a scholarly book or article, built from primary sources. The book referenced in the Brunswick Primary School article would be asecondary source - there is no circumstance in my view under which it could be classified as a primary source. --Golden Wattle ^talk 02:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: The book is published by the school. From what ive been told, that makes it a primary source. Then there is the question about the author... Can you clarify please. With respect, what you have been told is wrong or you have misunderstood. Please read the two articles on sources - they aren't that long! That the book was published by the school does not make it a primary source. Kenneth Eric Eckersall seems to be a published hisorian of several works - see Google search and also for example the NLA catlogue [11] - unfortuanately in my past experience links from NLA searches can't be saved so you may have to try your self to find out a little more about the author if you wish to query his credentials.--Golden Wattle ^talk 03:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Schools[edit]

Hi Twenty Years. While I generally share your ideas on the notability of primary schools, it may be worth assessing the manner that you use when listing the articles for deletion. Notability of schools is a contentious issue where it is possible for two people of good will to disagree. While you haven't been abusive or uncivil, sometimes it is better to leave others comments to stand unchallenged, especially where they have expressed a matter of opinion rather than fact. Getting others' backs up is only likely to encourage them to dig their heels in. Have some faith in the ability of the closing administrator to sort through arguments and come up with a reasonable conclusion and remember at the end of the day it isn't life and death if some non-notable articles are kept. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 03:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]