User talk:Five Years/Archive 9

'''This is Archive #9 for User talk:Five Years

AfD nomination of Robert J White (headmaster)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Robert J White (headmaster), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. &mdash;Moondyne 05:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

La Martiniere
I think you've misunderstood the TFD outcome. The template was quite rightly deleted as we now know it was a contravention of Wikipedia policy. The closing admin commented:

"Associated with several schools, wide interest, notability of song", etc - this is a reason to have an article on the song…"

"relevant content for each article is decided mostly on its own merits.

"Schools in multiple countries probably do not make the school song any more or less notable. If it does then an article on the song, not a template on its lyrics, is the way to go."

My suggestion is entirely in accordance with the closing admin's comments. There is no need for such harassment. Dahliarose 12:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.
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. R Delivery Bot 21:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Schools lists
Hi. Whatever happened regarding the discussion over the merge of List of schools in Western Australia and List of schools in Perth, Western Australia? Looking at a number of lists in Category:Lists of schools in Australia I'm starting to wonder if most shouldn't be AfD'd per WP:NOT. I wondered what your thoughts were. &mdash;Moondyne 15:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can i get permission to start some AfD's on basically all of the Lists in that category except for the state/territory ones? do you have any exceptions. Regarding that discussion, it was on the talk page, but i didnt add the merge template and as such the convo got no real input, and failed to produce anything constructive. Twenty Years 07:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to understand a bit more what you are proposing to nominate and what to leave and what your criteria is. I didn't imagine you jumping quite so quickly, but rather was expecting some discussion first.  I'd anticipate that it may be a bit contentious.  Reply here if you like.  &mdash;Moondyne 08:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to nominate Everything, except for: state/terrtory lists (eg. schools in WA), and the list of schools in Aust. I think the rest are cruft. Twenty Years 08:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What is your intention on uncategorised lists such as List of schools in Perth, Western Australia? &mdash;Moondyne 08:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * AfD per duplication. Twenty Years 08:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * . I was going to query List of schools in Victoria, Australia according to 2005 VCE results but on second thoughts reckon its a . There's more at Lists of schools in Australia BTW. &mdash;Moondyne 08:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather than dig a deeper hole for yourself, please slow down and deal with one at a time. If you are arguing for a merge (as you appear to be in Articles for deletion/List of Government schools in New South Wales), then say so. Thats different to an AfD. &mdash;Moondyne 12:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC) I'm confused as to exactly what your intentions were and I now wish I'd been a bit firmer above in asking for some more discussion first. &mdash;Moondyne 12:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Im trying to get rid of all of the subs lists, to create one article for each state/territory. Twenty Years 12:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That fine but dont suggest merging article then a month later nominating them for deletion when there wasnt any opposition to the merge and the merge has yet to done. Be bold and do the merge, I can vouch for schools A to M as being complete for the Perth area. Gnangarra 12:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Infact, the merge was not done properly, so i felt that it needed to be AfD. Twenty Years 12:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ditto Gnangarra. What's stopping you expanding/developing the existing state articles first?   &mdash;Moondyne 12:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Would have been a better option. Twenty Years 12:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I removed the NSW debate page as per your request, and as it included a number of lists.  I suggest taking that up as a discussion after the other discussions are finalised.  Next time, don't go at this sort of thing like a bull at a gate.  Please.  &mdash;Moondyne 14:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed - there is a case for deletion in many instances but you have to read the mood and sometimes a mass nomination allows a vocal minority to build a momentum across a range of related AfDs so that we're effectively constrained in what we can do with the lot of them for 3 months or so until they can be renominated. I watched this happen with a range of CORP articles Thewinchester was nominating some months back, and you started to see the same names on the same AfDs - waiting a month or two really wouldn't have hurt in some cases. In other areas we merge stuff all the time using deletion criterion G6 if it's uncontroversial - i.e. if the lists are duplicates. AfD should only really be for deciding the fate of the finished product of such a process IMO. Orderinchaos 03:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for sort of jumping on you at the discussion of these nominations. I guess the large number of noms lead to a bit of rush of blood. I think a couple of the articles in the mass nom actually need an individual AFD, eg List of schools in Victoria, Australia according to 2005 VCE results. Recurring dreams 10:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Look
At who has done a considerable amount of work on getting the 'project' up and running and work order for you - and for goodness sake show some sort of gratitude/thanks to those who do it - its one thing to have a bright idea - another to actually follow through. SatuSuro 02:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not logging in since the edits started taking place. Thank you for pointing it out to me, much appreciated. Twenty Years 16:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessments
I've just been checking the updated school assessment log and I see that you're making good progress with the Ds. I note that you seem to have assessed a couple of articles as Bs without notifying the assessment page. In both cases these articles were lacking references and I've now downgraded them to starts. You need to make sure that all articles you rate as B or high are notified to the assessment page. Dahliarose 23:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:EiA
No worries. The stats bot has just run and the table is up to date. You could now look at Category:Unassessed Education in Australia articles if you like. &mdash;Moondyne 08:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Once i have tagged all of the EiA articles, i will look at creating an edu-importance rating for all of the articles, and assessing them. Twenty Years 11:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.
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 03:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

CBC/PSA
I'm curious as to your rationale for this edit? CBC is a former (founding) PSA school and is discussed in the PSA article. &mdash;Moondyne 10:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it says members, which implies that they are current, CBC is not, hasnt been since 37', so it doesnt warrant the template. It also isnt even mentioned in the template. Then there is the school of thought that says that in the eyes of the PSA, AC is CBC (as in how it took its membership, and the meeting minutes which ive quoted earlier). Take which one you like, it doesnt belong there. There was also growing criticism of the number of templates at the bottom of that particular page. Twenty Years 10:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of template forests, and would prefer them to go from all the articles, but as long as we have them we should be consistent. Its not in the template, because you took it off, so I don't think you should use that as an argument. &mdash;Moondyne 10:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)  Sorry, That wasn't you - my bad. &mdash;Moondyne 10:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * :In fact, it originally had the seven schools, i added CBC and it was eventually removed. Im just trying to follow the comments/improvements that are placed on the talk page. Twenty Years 10:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats fine. You answered my question and I don't have a particularly strong view about it. Cheers. &mdash;Moondyne 10:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the Barnstar. I hope my comments haven't made life too difficult for you. Just a thought but your local library should have a collection of local newspapers. It might be worth checking through these for the relevant dates (eg, the CBC split) to get a better perspective and get some further source material. These events would surely have attracted some major coverage at the time. Dahliarose 11:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Battye microfilm collection will be your friend on this one, they have every edition of the West going back to the first one, and several competing papers as well along with local newspapers. Orderinchaos 12:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

St Mark's College
Hello Twenty Years, thanks for commenting on the issue about which of these paragraphs to go with:


 * In March 1991, The Advertiser reported student claims of sexual harassment and initiations at the college. It was claimed that male students forced female students to perform domestic tasks and that senior students initiated first year students by urinating and spitting on them. The then acting master of the college, Professor David Nicholas refuted the claims.


 * In March 1991, The Advertiser reported student claims of sexual harassment and initiations at the college. The then acting master of the college, Professor David Nicholas refuted the claims.

Could you tell me why you chose to stick with the shorter paragraph? Cheers Username nought 09:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC).


 * Basically it doesnt give undue weight to the topic (the smaller one), the top one also has claims, which i think is a little bit of an under-hand shot at college, and could cause the foundation to be sued, but thats another matter. Basically, WP:UNDUE. Twenty Years 09:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * November 1st. Auroranorth 14:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cats etc
If the AFL grand final has a afl tag - I am curious why have a need to put the sports tag there as well? SatuSuro 11:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read this carefully from the top - and then check further down the page - after you have done that please consider reverting your edit at the grand final talk page - but only after you have read the wikiproject page - however if you are not clear - please leave a message with me  - and have a good night - cheers - SatuSuro 11:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just in case you are wondering - I have made many cat mistakes - as I have ventured into a few here and there - a very very good rule of thumb is - for the project that is identified - go to that project's main page and have a look at the relationships between the projects on the project page - there are always tricks afoot - cheers SatuSuro 11:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are going to any extensive cat tagging - give me a whoopee and I'll point you in some directions if you like - there is always a backlog - and its good brain numbing activity - even if bots can do it better :> SatuSuro 11:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Roger - over and out SatuSuro 11:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting templates
As you are familiar with the procedure for deleting templates is there any chance you could nominate this one Template:Elementary school. It seems completely useless and no one is using it. Many thanks. Dahliarose 15:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It fitted the criteria for an uncontroversial housekeeping deletion per G6, so I nuked it (see Dahlia's talk page). Orderinchaos 16:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Newington College
Any thoughts on the current revisions and revert at Newington and on the alumni list. Mitchplusone 13:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * May I also have your opinion on the removal of three Headmasters from the List of Notable Old Newingtonians when one currently has an article which is up for deletion, Ian Lambert. Mitchplusone 13:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you planning to remove all brother and sister schools from all articles and if so would you care to explain fully your reasoning behind this. Mitchplusone 13:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for re-instating the History. At the same time as it was removed the section on David Scott, the headmaster, was removed with the same dubious expalnation of opyright violation. Could you please look at this and the link to the source material and re-instate it if you see fit. This same disruptive edit again linked David Scott in the info box to an American footballer and removed good sections on Sport and Co-curricular activities that were sourced and didn't have copyright violation. I would appreciate your further assistance in these matters as I don't want to get involved in a edit war with ExtrDry. Mitchplusone 14:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that easy to re-instate the David Scott piece and the sections on sport and co-curricular activities with out hours of rewritng as there have been edits since - do you have any suggestions. I am also sure that no amount of explaining will satisfy ExtraDry who reverted them in the first place with the copyright expalnation. Hope you can help. Mitchplusone 14:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.


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. R Delivery Bot 02:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

St Mark's College
Hello Twenty Years, thanks for commenting on the issue about which of these paragraphs to go with:


 * In March 1991, The Advertiser reported student claims of sexual harassment and initiations at the college. It was claimed that male students forced female students to perform domestic tasks and that senior students initiated first year students by urinating and spitting on them. The then acting master of the college, Professor David Nicholas refuted the claims.


 * In March 1991, The Advertiser reported student claims of sexual harassment and initiations at the college. The then acting master of the college, Professor David Nicholas refuted the claims.

Could you tell me why you chose to stick with the shorter paragraph? Cheers Username nought 09:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC).


 * Basically it doesnt give undue weight to the topic (the smaller one), the top one also has claims, which i think is a little bit of an under-hand shot at college, and could cause the foundation to be sued, but thats another matter. Basically, WP:UNDUE. Twenty Years 09:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Twenty Years, sorry if this has dragged out a bit but I haven't been able to get on WP lately and I feel that this issue hasn't been settled yet. Thanks for your reply, my feeling is that the issue is significant enough to have an extra sentence of detail. The basis for this is the event was covered in two articles on seperate days in The Advertiser and I haven't found other events in the college's history that have received this kind of media attention except the 1991 murder. Thanks, Username nought 09:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I admit that I didn't get off on the right foot with the regular editors of the article but I am trying to be a better contributor, mainly by discussing things with you or other third parties to get an outside opinion. Each time we've come to a come to a consensus and that's what I'm trying to do here. I have searched for all newspaper articles on st mark's over the last 20 years on a library database and the 1991 murder and the sexual harrassment/initiation events had the most articles, don't you think that justifies an extra sentence explaining what the claims were? Just saying sexual harassment by itself could mean 1000s of different things. Thanks, Username nought 00:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the help on the Emerson article! I had no idea how to add that flag, and as for the caption thing...it's a form field and I filled it out...sorry for the redundancy.Mike Searson 16:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess they did not want the flag there as they took it back out. Thanks all the same! --Mike Searson 19:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the talk page help :) BTW I cleared out a few of your prods from last night because they were clear A7s in my view. Hope you're having a good night... I pulled an all nighter trying to get this assignment done. :| Orderinchaos 08:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Australian Infobox
Hey just had another look at the infobox for the Carmel Adventist College article and you are correct, it's an Aust Private School infobox. Many of the Adventist schools had weird infoboxes and I assumed when I looked at the way the logo had a box around it that it was one of them. Thanks for pointing it out! Loopla 09:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Activity
''You seem to be remotely active (well more so that the others on here anyway), im just after a few comments regarding my 3 requests on Moon's talk page (bottom). Many Thanks. Twenty Years 11:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I reckon your judgment on AfDing articles is pretty sound these days. Go for it.
 * Regarding the crests, I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:FURG first, and see about making Image:Aquinas Logo.png comply. It is a pretty good start, but it doesn't state its source, and it doesn't explicitly state which article a fair use claim is being made for. Possible there are other problems I'm not aware of. Once you've got the Aquinas logo fixed up to comply with FURG, get one of us to check it, then I'd be happy to unleash you on the other school crests. Hesperian 12:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's good. Carry on then. Hesperian 12:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talk page. &mdash;Moondyne 12:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry not impressed - it is very easy to come up with N as if you know something - but to what extent do you actually check outside of an article as you press the afd button?  Just as well I am not one of them above - I would be giving you a hard time. cheers SatuSuro 15:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The issues relating to this school is that the third party/articles are out there - they are not oggle based - or for that matter state ref library - like many parts of the ed system - (btw - there is quite a big kerfuffle about steiner methods in victoria - you touch anything there on the subject and the feathers wont settle for weeks) the whole issue of steiner schools is a tenuous one in current climate - and the material hard to trace easily - I'd let it go - there are 2 in wa that i know of - I differ from OIC - but if he knows more about the issue let him go for it. cheers SatuSuro 15:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's not a matter of whether the info should be on Wikipedia, but where. I would not object to an article called "Steiner schools in Australia" or "History of the Steiner (method?) in Australia" or somesuch, as I doubt the history and challenges between one school and the next would differ much (and may well be heavily interlinked), but they'd certainly face unique challenges collectively as a group. A friend of mine has a kid going to a Montessori primary school, so I'm well aware of the potential for an interesting article. Orderinchaos 01:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point OIC - where is the problem - the thing is in Victoria is where the whole steiner thing is brewing - or the ABC religion report has been regularly reporting on the issue - its not just that either montessori or steiner schools are different - they also attract external interest as to their methods and rationales and approaches to primary education - and the dynamics as to how the different state departments of educations in australia cope with schools with 'difference' is intriguing when we lay claim to being a multicultural country (or did at some stage) - take the friends school as an example in hobart, tas - for instance. more off line latyer - cheers SatuSuro 03:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire reason my friend's son is in a Montessori school (he only entered it three months ago) is because he was not coping with the state system well and was a kid who fell outside the system in many ways. They were willing to try just about anything to get him back on track and the Montessori system appears to have offered an answer. They don't approach education in the same way like you said, and I suppose some who are steeped in the traditional systems see it as a form of quackery, while those within it point to the obvious dividends in their own students. The ironic thing is that the primary school curriculum while criticising these movements seems to be moving towards their methods in subtle and slight ways, which to me seems something of an acknowledgement. Orderinchaos 05:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - gmail SatuSuro 23:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

powderbark2 again
Thanks, TwentyYears. Please refer my user page (and note this suggestion is low priority). Powderbark2 03:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Durack
That sounds good to me. &mdash;Moondyne 08:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, thats the idea. &mdash;Moondyne 08:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Patrick is notable, IMHO. &mdash;Moondyne 12:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're fairly safe if its got an ADB entry. Otherwise why not just use the Durack family page?  There's no need to push the envelope all the time.  If the family page entry gets too big then by all means.  &mdash;Moondyne 03:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The more the merrier. Have a look at Bush family.  You could have a crack at using the familytree template.  There's a challenge for ya! &mdash;Moondyne 03:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The template would be good, I have a few things for the text on the notable and extended family. It will be a challenge, but it would be a useful page. I will try and sort out my mess to give you some more leads. Watch out for errors in fact elsewhere too. Some relations had the same name, and lived at the same time. Regards, Cygnis insignis 07:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Let me know about this one, I often forget to bookmark things. I've got some articles somewhere, let me know if you want those emailed. Cygnis insignis 17:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007


Automatically delivered by COBot 03:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent Category changes to Adelaide Private Schools
I think I don't agree with some of your recent changes, and thought I'd ask you before reverting them. Awaiting your reply, Pdfpdf 15:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, (as if you didn't already know!), we're different in South Australia. Primary is R-7 and Secondary is 8-12 (or 8-13 if you prefer). (I understand the rest of Australia is R-6 and 7-12.)
 * Prince Alfred College is, in fact, K-13. So changing "Category:Schools in Adelaide" to "Category:High schools in South Australia" is just plain wrong.
 * Same comment for St Peter's College, Adelaide. (Though, if we're being pedantic, they may be R-13 rather than K-13.)
 * Concordia College, Adelaide is unusual, in that it's 7-13, (rather than the "normal" South Australian 8-13), so it's not "just" a secondary school.
 * And why have you changed the categories from "in Adelaide" to "in South Australia"?
 * No doubt you've changed other schools as well; they're not on my watchlist.


 * Ive made about ten of those edits, yes. Technically speaking, a school that is K-13 is a high school, as 8-13 is part of that, so technically it does belong there. This has been done in all School categories in Australia.
 * Im not sure what "R" is, so i cant comment there? is that like Kindy or Pre-primary (im from the West, we have Kindy, then PP, then grade 1 etc.)
 * I have changed from Adelaide to SA, basically because it creates too many categories, and defining Adelaide is also slightly ambiguous (the ABS has a definition, i know).
 * Any problems with that? Twenty Years 15:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically, im trying to make all the School categories (eg. Schools in SA, Schools in WA) all uniform, so we dont have different standards for each state/territory. Twenty Years 15:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How remarkably sensible and logical of you! In principle I agree and support you; unfortunately, in practice, I have some problems ... Cheers, Pdfpdf 15:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI: K=kindergaarten=pre-school=pre-primary. R=reception=first-calendar-year-of-primary-school; as SA allows entry at start-of-the-term-after-the-kid-turns-five, The amount of time a kid spends in reception is a function of birth-date. 1=the first "full" year of primary education.
 * Well yes, technically they address the "high school" population, but they also address the primary school population. I'm not happy with you changing "school" to (just) "high school". I can live with you changing it to both "high school" AND "primary school". But really, "Schools in Adelaide" was perfectly adequate, whereas your change is neither accurate nor adequate.
 * I can live with either SA or Adelaide, though I don't know of any private schools in SA that are NOT in Adelaide. (e.g. The 3 on my watchlist are in inner-suburbs of Adelaide.)
 * Yes, I have some problems - already stated.
 * And yes, I'm all for consistency and simplicity, (but my first priority is accuracy).


 * Well, the simple answer would be to create a "Category:Primary schools in South Australia" (or whatever you call primary school), and then populate this category with schools, even if they have "Category:High schoongs in South Australia". Problem solvered? Twenty Years 15:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The simple answer would be to revert what you've done and leave it as it was! (Yes, we call it a primary school.) (I'm a bit confused by your suggestion.) What was wrong with "Schools in Adelaide"? (Or, if you prefer, "Schools in South Australia"?) I'd be amazed if you didn't have schools in WA that weren't didn't educate students of both primary and secondary age. Certainly most private schools in "The East" do that too. How have you been handling them? As I said before, changing "Schools in SA" to "Secondary schools in SA" is just plain wrong, and chaning it to two entries of "Primary schools in SA" and "Secondary schools in SA" isn't much better; it implies they are two schools, which they are not.

I can live with you changing "Schools in Adelaide" to "Schools in SA" if you must, but I don't see the value of changing one category into two categories, particularly when both are inaccurate descriptions of the situation!

So: "No, problem not solvered (yet)." Pdfpdf 16:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My issue with creating a category like that is that it is likely to be CfD'd because in the eyes of wikipedians "primary schools are generally non-notable", but i am more than willing to have one. Twenty Years 15:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OMG! This just gets more complicated as we go! Remind me please: What was wrong with "Schools in Adelaide"/"Schools in SA"? Pdfpdf 16:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll just butt in with one relevant observation - with the pre-school years Twenty Years has done nothing wrong - K in WA is the year before year 1. There is indeed a year before that (i.e. 2 years before year 1), which is not accommodated by the primary system. In SA, that K year is called R or Reception. Just to confuse the crap out of everybody, in both states, *both* years are often administered by child health centres or kindergartens. Like us they divide at 7|8 instead of 6|7 (the Vic/NSW way). I have friends who have grown up in a range of systems across Australia so got my head around it years ago :) Orderinchaos 16:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Lucky you?? ;-D Pdfpdf 16:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (And yes, the K/R/whatever end isn't the problem.) Pdfpdf 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In the bright light of a new day, I have broadened my POV, and have a broader understanding of what I think your POV is. In summary, I can live with the changes you've made. However, I do have some comments/questions: OK? Cheers, Pdfpdf 00:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The categories seem to be of the from "type-of-school in location". i.e. There seems to be two aspects to the categories: type and location
 * I think your major aim is to reduce the number of locations by merging Adelaide and SA into the same location. Yes? If so, my POV is "Good idea."
 * So, looking at the "type-of-school", just how many types are there? (Without looking or straining my brain, I can think of: private, secondary, boarding. Presumably there are others too.) Given that "primary schools are generally non-notable", that tends to complicate the matter a little, because such a category would/could never be populated representatively. (i.e. It would/could only be populated with "notable" primary schools.)
 * Although changing "Schools in Adelaide" to "Secondary Schools in South Australia" is "wrong", adding "Secondary Schools in South Australia" to a school in SA which contains a secondary school is sensible, and changing Adelaide to SA is sensible.
 * So, I think my POV on type-of-school is "I can live with your changes."

Well, there are many types of schools: eg. private, public, primary, secondary, boarding, religious (eg, christian brothers, anglican etc), single-sex (boys or girls). The bigger states will naturally have more sub cats. Have a look in "Schools in Australia", that has most of them. Twenty Years 01:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Pdfpdf 02:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Toowoomba Grammar School
Have at it (I gave it a semi=protection protect only as of now). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

NewingtonCruft
The Categorys Newington College headmasters, Former Newington College teachers, Newington College headmasters & Old Newingtonians' Union presidents. Could any of these be deleted? ExtraDry 09:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW User:ExtraDry/NewingtonCruft feel free to add to the essay! ExtraDry 09:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just be warned that the sockpuppets will come out of the woodwork to support each other. ExtraDry 09:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but have a look at User:ExtraDry/Newington_Sockpuppets ExtraDry 10:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am getting tired of seeing these unsubstantiated allegations. Either take it to WP:SSP and/or WP:RFCU, otherwise we're dealing with a good faith/personal attacks violation. The fact a past RFCU on this issue came back inconclusive/unlikely fails to convince me they are sockpuppets, although I'm not completely convinced that they're not, either. Orderinchaos 11:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You just have to look at the contributions to see that they are not unsubstantiated. ExtraDry 11:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The contributions tell me they are single-purpose accounts, not sockpuppets. Orderinchaos 12:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have responded at Category talk:Newington College. Mitchplusone 11:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please look at the latest edit to Newington. As explained in the previous edit it should be all the activities listed as co-curricular or none. Why should you, ExtraDry, or I decide which are important and which aren't. I would appreciate your opinion on this but please remember that if the co-curricular go then so should the sports section to be consistant. Mitchplusone 12:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

lol the socks are trying to make it look like i work for the school in an effot to discredit me. ExtraDry 12:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * More cruft David Scott (headmaster) Do you want to AFD this one? ExtraDry 13:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ive sorted the category problem out. I hope all are happy. ExtraDry, do as you please. Twenty Years 15:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You have suggested lengthening other sections to make the IR Dispute section seem more in proportion with everything else. Well, all I can say is every effort I have made to improve and increase the Newington article has been derided by you as Newingtoncruft so you are asking a lot. You have very strong oipinions, Twenty, so tell me what you would like to see. Would you please place the outdated tag on the IR dispute as I don't know how to and if I do it it will be removed immediately by a disruptive editor. Mitchplusone 15:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggesting that I look at here for some notable alumni leads me to question your credibility on educational and alumni issues. This article is riddled with inaccuracies and is a seriously politicised and outdated document. The wiki notable alumni lists for most Australian private schools started out when someone decided to cut and paste that document. Fortunately most school lists have gone well beyond that level. A good quality history section has already been written - lengthening it to cover the deficencies of another section is absurd. Something on scholarships and prizes would be great but I can only imagine that it would last minutes before you or somone else removed it as you did with the material on sporting facilities on campus - so it is a bit rich asking for more on campus details. You ask for a "bit on music/the arts, and some info on any specialist programs the school runs (eg. cadets)" having in the last 24 hours removed all that information. So basically I think it is time for you to take your own advice and refrain from editing Newington College or its affiliated articles. While I am sure all your actions have been in good faith they have at times been careless and arrogant. I trust that we can move on from this discussion and in the future work in harmony. Mitchplusone 16:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Craziness
Orderinchaos 11:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ...so do you like the Liberal Party or not? Auroranorth 11:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally have no issue with them, nor do I have an issue with Labor. Im a "swing" voter. Twenty Years 13:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From conversation with other Wikipedians, I believe you cannot vote yet. Auroranorth 13:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, i cannot. Im in a very marginal seat, so my vote would help Kim keep his seat. Twenty Years 13:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding consistency: I have nor the time or the patience to do that. Besides, somebody is probably going to revert it anyway. I can't 'do' tables that well, either. Regarding seats, I don't really know who Kim is. Are you in the Brand or Swan electorate? Both have 'Kim' as the incumbent. Kim Beazley can stay, he's alright and not doing any harm. Auroranorth 13:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Our seat is marginal yet has not had money thrown at it yet, just a visit from Costello is rumoured. Auroranorth 13:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont think Beazley is at the next election. So im from the other Kim's seat :D Twenty Years 13:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, Kim Wilkie. Signing off! Auroranorth 13:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Schools in Adelaide has been emptied
I have noted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Adelaide that you have emptied the category. You might want to comment there. Are you planning to purge the other school by city categories? Paul foord 06:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)