Jump to content

User talk:Five Years/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is Archive #11 for User talk:Five Years
Archive 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.
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

The Preuss School UCSD PR

Hi. You recently gave a number of pieces of useful advise in the above peer review. I have since replied to your comments and enacted some of your suggestions. Some further feedback would be welcome. Thanks a bunch. SorryGuy 04:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 44 29 October 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones WikiProject Report: Agriculture
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 06:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brunswick South Primary School (2nd nomination)

Twenty Years, in your hurry to rid us of articles on 50m2 Besa-block buildings with 5 students you may have missed that this one is on the Register of the National Estate with a good writeup and a bibliography of other works about the school. Would you reconsider your position ? - Peripitus (Talk) 09:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You do seem to have gotten slightly worked up about this one and battled overly hard with Keepists....perhaps a nice cup of tea would help ? On the whole most of the school articles you nominate deserve to be circular filed but I disagree on this one. If it's kept, and before you send it up for the 3rd time, I'd suggest some sort of flame-proof underclothes. Keep up the good work on the schools articles! - Peripitus (Talk) 10:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted you think ? I'll put USD$50 in the "donate" box above if it is...and possibly work on the damn thing if it isn't. Watching the watchlist for the next few days now - Peripitus (Talk) 10:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
What if it's merged? Auroranorth (sign) 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge/Delete are the same thing in this instace, the suburb article already summarises the school well, with one line :) Not sure how Perip feels though. Twenty Years 10:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Mmm... it's a bit confusing, I think. I would prefer the merger (see the AfD) but the consensus isn't really swaying that way. Auroranorth (sign) 11:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The merger is very sensible, as for the suburb article to be complete, it obviously has to mention it has this school in it, (see hamersley). The suburb article summarises it well, so deleting it is all thats needed to do. Twenty Years 11:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: WB

Yes, I don't know where to start... AfD or MfD? LOL. I should try to stay out of trouble. Auroranorth (sign) 10:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see that. I would be most interested in contributing to these discussions. Any objections (from anybody), please feel free to contact me. Auroranorth (sign) 10:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

University faculties

Assuming that by "faculties" you mean a division of a university, according to our proposed article guidelines they are not notable unless important, unique, or remarkable in some way. Although the guidelines are just proposed, check out the relevant information. I would argue that they are not notable unless they have national recognition and generally survive the criteria of WP:NAMING.—Noetic Sage 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Would agree with this advice - quite apart from the fact they keep changing, splitting, merging etc. (The new terminology of Division/Faculty/School adopted in some places also makes faculties very minor on the scale of things) For the most part they're simply administrative monoliths that everyone (including the academics within them) largely ignore. Anything that would make them theoretically notable can either be filed under the academic's article, the institution, or the article detailing the incident or area of research which would ascribe notability. Orderinchaos 21:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Newington College

Hi - looking at the page history the level of vandalism, while annoying, is not such that page protection or semi-protection is justified in my view. Nothing wrong with escalating the matter to AWNB but you might like to try Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (abbreviation WP:RFP ) as an alternate and more specific escalation point with perhaps a more consistent approach to page protection. Regards--Golden Wattle talk 06:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

St Mark's murder

Hi Twenty Years, I just wanted to ask you why you have changed your mind about the murder paragraph in the St Mark's article? If you read the discussion page you will find that you actually suggested using the paragraph which included the sentence about the location the body was found. Also, that paragraph had been in the the article since July up until this week when Yeti Hunter removed the sentence.

I think it's bad form to condemn me for editing the paragraph and then when you find out that it was actually Yeti Hunter who edited the paragraph, you support the change.

I thought you and me had a good working relationship on the St Mark's article. I've always thought you've been fair even if you've disagreed with my views but now I feel that I can't trust you as a third party anymore. I hope you can clear this up for me. Cheers. Username nought 10:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the apology. Username nought 21:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Twenty Years, I'm not sure what to do about the current issues with the murder and harrassment paragraphs. Last time I was willing to compromise for the sake of consensus but I'm not willing to further compromise my view and I think I'm wasting my time trying to convince editors to leave the paragraphs at their current revisions. So basically I don't think we're going to reach a consensus too soon. What are our options? Will this have to go to request for comment? Cheers. Username nought 13:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to go to RFC! They tend to err on the side of common sense, as we saw with the previous one.--Yeti Hunter 22:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry Twenty Years but I think I have already compromised a lot so we could reach consensus with these issues, I think other editors are not being reasonable. I suggest we take the issue to RFC. Hopefully that will resolve these issues for good. Cheers. Username nought 00:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your comment on my talk page about the unlikeliness of this going to RFC but considering my stance to not compromise any further, what are the next steps? Cheers. Username nought 00:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to that, I appreciate your efforts trying to reach a consensus with a new revision but I fear if I make another compromise, we will just end up debating shortening the paragraph again in a few months time. Username nought 01:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Xavier Article

Hi Twenty, with the removal of the "Controversy" section in the Xavier College Melbourne article, do you mind if I remove the section? It's been spoken about on the talk page though I see that you have reverted the article several times. Feel free to leave a comment either on my talk page (which is currently blank) or the Xavier article talk page letting me know what you feel about it. senex 10:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

FLC discussion continued

The discussion you participated in continues at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics. The Transhumanist 04:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Aurora's block

[1]. Not so. Admins should consider past history when determining block duration. WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks explicitly says this. —Moondyne 14:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

GlassCobra's RfA

My RFA
Hello Twenty Years! Thanks a lot for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. Your support in particular was really valuable because it came right on the tails of a strong oppose, and your confidence in me really bolstered my spirits. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified, and please feel free to call on me if you ever need any help or opinions! GlassCobra 02:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Faculties

If you mean individual faculty members, see a full discussion on my talk page. If you mean what the US calls Academic departments, generally not. If you mean something like what the US calls a college, like the faculty of Medicine, then quite possibly if there is enough sourced material. (all this based on previous decisions at AfD). The article on a university would often be too long if not divided, and dividing by the major subdivisions makes sense. See WP:SUMMARY for the general concept. DGG (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Note on TOC

Hi there, this is a note on TOC relating to your recent edit at Sydney Law School and generally on other education-related pages.

The featured article criterion on TOC length is that it should be "substantial but not overwhelming": see WP:WIAFA.

While this is a subjective judgment in any particular case, a TOC of 13 lines (as was at Sydney Law School) is not overwhelming - an example of featured articles with 13 lines of TOC is Buckingham Palace. Keeping the TOC under control does not mean eliminating all subsections. Until and unless the article has so many subsections as to make the TOC "overwhelming" -- e.g. if the article develops in future to have 20 or 25 lines in the TOC -- please do not eliminate subsections simply for the sake of doing so. They serve a useful purpose for navigation.

Happy editing, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I know you are looking at the future - unfortunately, however, many Wikipedia articles never gain the amount of content they might deserve. Please leave the sections be until they get big enough.
It's the same reason why we don't separate out, say, alumni lists into a seaprate page unless the main article gets too large and unwieldy.
You might think that relatively people are here for the alumni list, but nevertheless getting rid of sections without a legitimate stylistic reason (e.g. that the TOC is too long) is removing information and not useful for users. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Importance ratings for WP:EIA

The importance parameter already appears to be active for the Education WikiProject. There's no real how-to guide available but to use the parameter as it's currently implemented try the following...

{{WP Australia|edu=yes|edu-importance=Top}} for Top-importance Education in Australia articles
{{WP Australia|edu=yes|edu-importance=High}} High-importance Education in Australia articles
{{WP Australia|edu=yes|edu-importance=Mid}} for Mid-importance Education in Australia articles
{{WP Australia|edu=yes|edu-importance=Low}} for Low-importance Education in Australia articles
{{WP Australia|edu=yes|edu-importance=}} for Unknown-importance Education in Australia articles -- Longhair\talk 05:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I found a bug in the importance code for the edu parameter of the {{WP Australia}} template. Is it working as it should now? -- Longhair\talk 07:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
As for articles not appearing in the importance categories, I understand it may be related to the length of the job queue which is well over 4,000,000 at the moment (see Special:Statistics). -- Longhair\talk 07:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, we've had the same prob on NSW and QLD. If it becomes long term, then worry about it then :) The thing you should be checking is the contents of the actual categories - if it goes in there, it will appear on the graphic stats at some point Orderinchaos 09:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Rationale

Thanks for that :) Yep, seems to be okay. (Well, until the next round of random bot deletions, anyway...) Orderinchaos 09:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Cross for Australia

Hi, Twenty Years, you may be interested to know that the featured article nom for Victoria Cross for Australia has been restarted. Your comments would be welcome on the FAC when you get the chance. Thanks. Woodym555 14:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd image

Feel free to re-review your vote for KevinRuddZoom2.jpg as I have cropped the image and re-uploaded to commons (please refresh and/or wait if no new photo is seen). Thanks. Timeshift 17:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Timeshift 04:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

St. Marks

I think the rewrite is a good approach. Regarding your mention of notabilitiy, to me that link proves my point, A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. A couple of newspaper articles 16 years ago seems like a short burst, dont you think? Anyway, the rewrite of the murder is good, lets go with that at least. --Echcua 22:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Twenty, thanks for trying to get the paragraph down to a sensible size. I argue, however, that the only sensible thing to do is not include it at all. Both paragraphs are completely out of context, they are just random miscellaneous facts - news from 16 years ago! How can inclusion be justified when compared with Virginia Tech, or Columbine High School? --Yeti Hunter 22:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It also amazes me that little old St Mark's in little old Adelaide has a talk page which has already got one archive and another well on the way, had to go to RFC once already, and hundreds and hundreds of revisions. It's mostly due to one user: User:Username nought. It's so clearly a single purpose account. See Nought's edit history - Nothing but St marks st marks st marks, and every now and then an attempt to damage a different page that myself, ABVS or OzDaren have contributed to. Nought is also pretty surely a sock puppet - his knowledge of wiki guidelines is too good for him to have only ever edited one page. Also, see these diffs: [2] and [3]. All his edits are designed to damage the St Mark's article - not one single positive edit in over a year. Sorry, but I'm through assuming good faith with this user. --Yeti Hunter 22:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Food for thought

Yes. I thought I'd do something for the troops. Auroranorth 07:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL. I'm sorry I accidentally revealed that vandal's comments! Auroranorth 07:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Ha, ha. Make sure you're careful! Auroranorth 07:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Bug fixed. Auroranorth 07:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin?

Hey man, have you ever been considered being an admin? You've got a very impressive edit count, spread nicely over the spaces, and your work with the Education in Australia WikiProject is really good. I'd be happy to nominate you if you like. :) Think about it, okay? GlassCobra 15:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If it helps you make this decision, I for one would oppose you at RfA. You've been coming along very nicely in the last few months, but I don't think you're even close to ready to step up to admin yet. Hesperian 22:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I am very humbled by your comments, you may wish to note that i have an semi-long block history, which would attract many opposes. Long story short: i wont be going for admin until i have 20-30,000 contribs. It probably wouldnt pass until this time next year, at the earliest. Thank you anyway. Twenty Years 00:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's a pretty reasonable timeframe. Yet another sign that you're coming along nicely. Hesperian 00:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I for one would not evaluate by edit count but quite a few other aspects - and would strongly oppose until there was a period of time where there was not a single one of past sins in sight(ie months free of such issues). And for whatever the far ranging precedents in other projects I still squirm when I see libraries and museums tagged with education project tags - other than that  :) keep up the good work SatuSuro 01:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine by me. Admittedly, I hadn't seen your block log, but I think you've got the makings of a good admin if you keep up your positive editing. :) Stay well! GlassCobra 01:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks to all here for the feedback comments. Twenty Years 04:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking back...

Looking back I can see I was out of line, thanks for picking that up. --Echcua 11:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories now populated?

You'll see that it took a few days, but do you now see the relevant articles in the Education in Australia assessment categories? -- Longhair\talk 19:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Marks RfC

My only experience with the RfC process was the one brought by Nought over the issue of the college roll; I was following the procedure that was taken back then. Sorry if this is considered inappropriate, I was not sure whether to add previous comments or not, and I believed those four points to be representative of the arguments put forward so far, ie, Nought says it's notable, I say it's not, you say it's somewhat notable but doesn't warrant undue weight. I think the way you have edited my original posting is quite appropriate, and thankyou for your comments. --Yeti Hunter 09:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read your second thoughts - I think that, along with the four or so outside comments all opposing inclusion, just about puts the issue to rest. While I support removing the debate from prominence out of respect for the family, I don't think it should be deleted entirely (in case this issue is raised again in the future). The talk page at present is already quite long, and most of the debates are closed (possible exception of the expanded history section discussion), so perhaps the whole thing could be archived (a second archive already, good grief!) once this is over. How much longer should RfCs generally be left open for discussion?--Yeti Hunter 03:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

EiA

Hi! I've done some templates for the project.

Many more to come (list to be populated). Tell me what you think. I'll add them as necessary. Auroranorth 12:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:EIA Collaboration is to be used on any page, such as your user page, the WikiProject page, etc. Template:EIA Current Collaboration is to be used on the actual talk page of the article itself. It is to be removed once its month is up. If you like, I could make a 'this article was formerly the EIA COTM'-type template. Auroranorth (!) 12:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

OIC's talk

Thanks. —Moondyne 13:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Missing importance tags

We would be most grateful if you could respond re the missing importance tags on some of the school articles which you have assessed. See the last thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Assessment I think you are trying to do them in too much of a hurry. It's much easier if both assessments are done at the same time. Dahliarose 23:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

PLC Sydney

Thanks Twenty Years! Im glad it finally got there..was getting a bit frustrating. Now I have to try and get it to FA haha.
Thanks for pointing out the infobox merger proposal..rediculous idea! Template:Infobox School is hideous and may as well just take the place of the article. Anyhoo, thanks again! Loopla 04:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough

RE your comments re the extras in the edu cat I'm not round much for a while - but your points are well taken - cheers - sats SatuSuro 05:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 45 5 November 2007 About the Signpost
Wikimedia avoids liability in French lawsuit WikiWorld comic: "Fall Out Boy"
News and notes: Grant money, fundraiser, milestones WikiProject Report: Lists of basic topics
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Volume 3, Issue 46 12 November 2007 About the Signpost
Unregistered page creation remains on hold so far WikiWorld comic: "Exploding whale"
News and notes: Fundraiser, elections galore, milestones Wikipedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Missing encyclopedic articles 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 08:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Five_Years/Archive_11&oldid=1250496309"