User talk:VanishedUser kfljdfjsg33k/Archive 1

KLA?
I'm really keen on the teaching of the Science and Mathematics KLA's, but ...  - I'm guessing that a KLA is a "Key Learning Area"? It's not a term I'm familiar with; can you point me at a useful webpage please? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's right KLA is Key Learning Area. It's basically an interchangeable word with subject. :) Probably a NSW teacher's specific acronym. - danjel  (talk to me) 13:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's basically an interchangeable word with subject. :)  - LOL! Yes, I am familiar with "subject". Thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. If you are in the mood, you might like to create an article, and an associated entry on KLA. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hummm. I'd be surprised if there isn't already something that covers it... Probably just a redirect to Curriculum or Syllabus, although both of those seem a little americo/university centric. I'll think about it. - danjel  (talk to me) 13:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There probably is "something that covers it" - it's just that in a quick search of WP, I didn't find anything that answered my question of: "WTF is a KLA?". Given that, of the two of us, YOU are the "subject matter expert", I'll leave it with you. Again, thanks. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah.. I've been looking over the last couple of minutes and there's really nothing. I'll think about it some more. Thanks for the suggestion. - danjel  (talk to me) 13:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Xavier College
G'day Pdfpdf. Just a note regarding your recent edits to Xavier College. I'll insert this into the talk page for the article also so that the discussion can begin, if you like.

(1) With regards to Fees, it was discussed at length over quite some time at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Education_in_Australia and Template_talk:Infobox_Australia_school_private. The consensus was to remove fees from Australian school infoboxes.

(2) With regards to adding extra information such as their post-nominals and so forth, I disagree that this is necessary, and it seems to detract from consistency across the site. There is no other Australian school article at the moment where this is included.

(3) With regards to the other position holders in key-people, I don't believe that these people are notable enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox, which, after all, is meant to be brief. Again, this is also an issue of consistency across the other infoboxes for other schools. Following WP:BRD, you've been bold, I've reverted, we're now at the discussion phase, and my stance at the moment is not to include that information.

I've also responded to your post on my talk page. Cheers. :) - danjel  (talk to me) 13:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Mate. From WP:BRD:

 1. BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.) 2. Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person. 3. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise.


 * You've made your edit, I reverted it. We have to discuss it before we come to a compromise and re-add it to the article. - danjel  (talk to me) 13:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind the suggestion, I'd really like for you to revert your latest couple of changes to reflect where we are at in the above process. - danjel  (talk to me) 13:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what time it is where you are, but it's bed-time here.
 * Why does this sort of thing always happen at bed-time?
 * I'm not interested in edit-warring.
 * It can wait until tomorrow, can't it?
 * I'll assume you will act in good faith whilst I'm sleeping.
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Schools
Hi Daniel. Thank you for your contributions to  school articles and recent related discussions. I's quite possible that you might not be aware that school articles are governed by a special set of guidelines. Except for extenuating circumstances, primary schools do not qualify for Wikipedia entries and are redirected to the education section on  the page about their locality. Do take a moment to familiarise yourself with the guide to school article content at WP:WPSCH/AG. Happy editing, and all the best for 2011. --Kudpung (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Schools
Thanks for catching the side bar typo. Please note however that the newsletter is still in draft form, is likely to have more additions, and is waiting on someone with cat search skills to extrapolate the mailing lists. Several have been asked, none have responded. I would have thought it may have been an easy task for someone like Kangoule, but I haven't asked him. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. It's one of those basic bloody errors that all of us make (me? I keep screwing up it's vs. its). :)


 * I put the newsletter at the top here so that I notice it, until something better can be done


 * I'd volunteer, but this is well outside my area of expertise. I'm sorry - danjel  (talk to me) 14:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

User: Pdfpdf
He deleted your comments on his page. I restored the changes because they were legitimate. --Graythos1 (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Graythos. Assuming that he has read and understood the warning, he is entitled to remove the warning per WP:OWNTALK. - danjel  (talk to me) 16:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh fair nuff. Changed back :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graythos1 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC) --Graythos1 (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this message on my talk page
 * Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Xavier College, you may be blocked from editing. I note also that you have removed the previous warning[]

Pdfpdf (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts
 * I neither deleted nor edited legitimate talk page comments. Yet again, get your facts straight before letting loose with accusations.
 * I note also that you have removed the previous warning - Yes. So what? As you said: "he is entitled to remove the warning per WP:OWNTALK".

Note
I have reported you at WP:AN3 for violating the three-revert rule. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  co-prince  ─╢ 16:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my request here that you strike out your false and unfounded accusation of my "concerted effort at baiting." Such unsubstantiated allegations can be considered personal attacks on Wikipedia, and I would appreciate your assistance with this matter. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  inspectorate  ─╢ 17:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied at AN3. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Captain-Regent  ─╢ 17:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Xavier College
Greetings! I just saw the WP:AN3 report on you. While objecting to the refactoring of your comments is a reasonable basis for reverting, by the third revert, you should probably have considered one of Wikipedia's venues for dispute resolution rather than edit-warring on the talk page. If nothing else, a helpme on your talk page would've gotten suggestions on how to proceed.

That said, looking at the talk page, I agree that the text starting with HiLo48's "From Danjel" comment should be refactored. Personally, I recommend hiding it with a description along the lines of "a descent down the slippery slope from talking about the article to talking about other editors."

Accordingly, if you agree, I'm willing to wrap the report up as follows:
 * 1) Refactor by collapsing the discussion as described above.
 * 2) Remove entirely the Talk:Xavier College as a comment about an editor and not the article
 * 3) Without admitting that you violated the three-revert rule, you agree that some form of dispute resolution would have been better than continuing to edit war on the talk page.
 * 4) No blocks or other sanctions are issued to any party to the report.

If you're online right now, please reply to indicate agreement, and I'll close the report promptly. —C.Fred (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, C.Fred. I need a moment to think about this, because I'm not fully happy with a situation where Pdfpdf gets to conceal his behaviour, and more importantly my objections to it.


 * In regards to your 3rd point, no dispute resolution is necessary as I have walked away from the dispute. I've made my reply to the report at AN3. - danjel  (talk to me) 17:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate that you're trying to mediate between two sides who (admittedly) clearly can't come to an agreement, I'm not completely happy with the points above. I'll agree that it was off topic, but a casual observer might wonder why I've suddenly withdrawn from my proposal.


 * I feel wronged by the way that conversation turned, and Pdfpdf's actions after that point were abusive and inflammatory, particularly the Last Post comment after I had unilaterally withdrawn. His attempts to hide it, my response and particularly his first attempt where he hid valid on-topic commentary by me [] were extremely inflammatory and WP:UNCIVIL


 * *sigh* I need some sleep. Do you mind if I hold off on your proposal and get back to you tomorrow? In any case, I'm not sure that TreasuryTag will be satisfied []. I'll wait for you to respond. - danjel  (talk to me) 18:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't wait any longer. I know you're busy, C.Fred, so thanks for the time you've devoted to this. I can't expect any more from you. I'll be back tomorrow or the day after. - danjel  (talk to me) 18:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This is to let you have been mentioned by me at the Administrator's Noticeboard - Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Murray Farm Public School
Thanks for your article Victuallers (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Top Ryde City
As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. ...

110.174.23.139 (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text than can instead be rewritten as necessary over time" - from WP:NPOV. 110.174.23.139 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hah, I actually meant to put the heading there to split up the long argument, but I think your version is better. (I did a double take because I reloaded the page and was like "Half the conversation disappeared!")--Danger (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance of school articles
Hi Danjel. You recently asked me how you can find school articles that need attention. Well, there is our WikiProject Schools of course, where there is a list of school pages needing urgent attention, but there is also this list of recent edits to schools that is updated daily: --Kudpung (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikiproject Watchlist - WikiProject Schools.

Orphaned non-free image File:MacRobertsonGHS.png
 Thanks for uploading File:MacRobertsonGHS.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Concordia College, Adelaide
Hi Danjiel. I notice that you have been involved in noticeboard disputes before. If you wish to  garner support for your complaints of breaches in policy, be sure to avoid falling into the trap of breaking any rules yourself, however hard it may be not to react to  WP:BAIT; in the worst case scenario, because of the civility issues, you and PDPDF could simply both end up with being topic banned from editing the article. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * G'day Kudpung. I'm sticking to my guns here, while being as civil as possible (it's why I'm trying to keep my responses as short and impersonal as possible). But yeah, I'm trying to avoid taking the bait to break 3RR here, particularly (as I'm sure an opportunity will present itself shortly). Thanks for the sobering reminder! - danjel  (talk to me) 13:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, that mean also  not even thinking  of refactoring  talk  pages. It  might  be a good idea to  move on  from Concordia. You  can find plenty  of other schools to  work  on  at  Category:High schools in South Australia and Category:Schools in Adelaide. You  might  even be able to  find some  high  schools in  Oz that  don't  have articles yet, and write your own -  no ownership  mind! --Kudpung (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and it's why I haven't struckthrough or removed the personal attacks even if WP:NPA would seem to suggest that I'm allowed to do so. I usually assume that it's better to assume that any refactoring at all would be unwelcome.


 * As to new High School pages. Hehehe, well yes, there are... Unfortunately I have Conflicts of Interest in regards to a number of high schools about which I could write articles at the moment. I'm sure that I can write neutrally, but I'd prefer to wait until an accusation against me would be more baseless. - danjel  (talk to me) 13:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Pdfpdf
Hi Danjel. I see you've been restoring templates on user:Pdfpdf's page, which is not a good idea. Removing the templates implies that he has read and understood them and they should not be restored. You may also want to read WP:Don't template the regulars, a personalised message would have come across much better. I agree there's been some incivility, but it'd be good if you could both take a step back and breath before moving on. Perhaps using dispute resolution would help? Worm  14:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * G'day Worm. Of course Pdfpdf has the right to remove warnings per WP:REMOVED. However, the removal of a warning implies that the warning has been understood. In spite of other people also pointing out their objections to his incivility, he continued.


 * Each warning I gave was in regards to a separate issue.


 * Warning 1 [] (NPA2) was given for []
 * Warning 2 [] (NPA3) was given for []
 * Warning 3 [] (3RR & NPA4) was given for his reversion here [] against the consensus on the talk page at Talk:Concordia College, Adelaide and the utterly irrelevant personal attack he inserted into his edit summary for the same revert.
 * Warning 4 [] (Refactor) was in regards to his refactoring of the comment I made objecting to his personal attacks that he removed at [] and []


 * He has, in fact, continued to be uncivil and doesn't show any sign that he acknowledges that what he is doing is wrong. Furthermore, I disagree with your suggestion that objecting to someone's personal attacks on you is baiting. Baiting implies goading into lashing out, whereas Pdfpdf was lashing out from the get go.


 * I also disagree that a personalised message would have been better. I think that the warning messages as they are are very neutrally written and I don't believe that I could do better, and I definitely don't believe that any attempt on my part to do better would be any more likely to be accepted by the other side.


 * I thank you for your attempts at interceding here. Don't worry, I don't intend to edit war; I'm sure others will revert any further attempts by Pdfpdf to ignore the views expressed at the talk page. Cheers. - danjel  (talk to me) 15:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That he continues to insist that telling me to "bugger-off" was him being "polite, reasonable, rational, tolerant and civil" is laughable. - danjel  (talk to me) 15:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)I'm not done attempting to interced just yet ;) though I'm glad to hear you don't intend to edit warring. I do understand the templates are neutrally worded, but they are still templates. I've never once seen them work well on someone who has been here for a little while. I have to turn the question back on you, if you see that the templates weren't helping, why on earth would you keep adding more templates. In this case they were just serving to bait (yes, you're right, the essay isn't the most helpful, but you know what I meant) Pdfpdf. His edit summaries made it clear that your messages were not having the desired effect, unless the desired effect was annoying him. There are appropriate places for you to take issues like this, for example WP:WQA.
 * As a friendly suggestion, would you consider trying to ignore articles including pdfpdf? A voluntary interaction ban? I can write up something a little more formal you could both agree to, if you like. Also, you may want to consider holding yourself to 1RR, as I see you've been blocked for edit warring in the past and while 3RR is a bright line that you didn't cross, you were still edit warring.  Worm   15:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking to discuss your past history, I've spent the last hour reading pretty much everything I can find between you and him since the end of December, and the way I see it both of you over-reacted to the situation at Xavier, and now there appears to be a grudge held. Would you really like me to highlight where you have been less than perfect? I was aware of all three points you mentioned and I stick by my questions. Would you be willing to voluntarily cease interation with pdfpdf and would you consider holding yourself to 1RR? I personally think that both might help you, but of course, it's totally up to you. I'm just leaving work now, but I'll be back on a computer in an hour.  Worm   15:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I kept adding in the hope that the escalation would get Pdfpdf's attention. You're right, I could have taken the issue to WQA, or even RFC/U, but what would that achieve? Both places would turn into another site for a back and forth between he and I.


 * Yeah, I've been blocked once in the past. Hence my care for that bright line. Reverting disruptive edits, such as those that contain personal attacks in their edit summaries and that ignore consensus is not edit warring. In fact, you'll notice that I directed people to the talk page [] after starting the discussion []. Asking for a discussion to happen isn't edit warring either.
 * I'm already leaving Xavier College alone because Pdfpdf insists that he owns that one too. I'm not leaving another school, my declared interest as this would reward and justify this sort of behaviour. The only interaction ban I would agree to is that he leaves school pages alone, and I'll leave geography pages (his userpage declares an interest in: Adelaide geography, Australian biographies, Australian companies with Adelaide origins) alone as I pretty much don't edit these anyway. I won't agree to limiting myself to 1RR. I feel that stopping interaction is better than allowing only a single revert to go to a fruitful discussion on a talk page, such as the one at Concordia.


 * Again, I appreciate the mediation and that you're trying to maintain neutrality. Of course, I'm less than perfect. You'll never see me claim otherwise. You can go into how imperfect I am, and I'll probably mostly agree with you. :)


 * Arrogant, stubborn, elitist, quick to anger, verbose, self convinced, obsessive, excitable, insomniac, antisocial, prone to misunderstandings of tone, allergic to prawns, etc. etc. etc. - danjel  (talk to me) 15:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You hoped that the escalation would get his attention? Well, it did but I'm sure you can see it didn't help. I'm not sure that constant warnings are of any real help when you're the affected party, they work a lot better when coming from an uninvolved or neutral third party, but hey that's personal opinion. The benefit of WQA is that someone is there to step in, RFC/U probably isn't the best place unless it's an ongoing issue and you have a desired outcome. But no matter, that's useful for future reference and I'll state now that you or he can always come to me if you want a third opinion.


 * My suggestion for an interaction ban would be more along the lines of you both forcing yourself to only discuss the edits, not the editor. One way is to not edit the same pages (him stop schools and you stop geography) but that means we lose editors at those venues. I was going to suggest something like this, if you'd both be agreeable. This way, we keep the discussions off user talk pages and do not discuss the other editor, only their edits.


 * User:Danjel and User:Pdfpdf voluntarily agree to refrain from commenting on one another at any venue on Wikipedia and from editing each others user talk pages for an indefinite period of time. Both are reminded to remain civil in any discussions of each others edits.


 * Re: 1RR, that was a suggestion that I thought you might find helpful. I hold myself to 1RR, or more accurately WP:BRD. In your discussions today, your suggestion was valid, as was his first revert. At that point, discussion should really have happened (which you did) and remained at the talk page until consensus was reached. There is no urgency to these edits, and you would have done well to leave it for a little longer than 15 minutes, or called for more eyes. As I said before, you're welcome to give me a shout in situations like this, but if that means an WP:RFC or a WP:3O so be it. You may not have crossed the bright line, but make no mistake you were edit warring as this was not vandalism. I didn't mean anything negative by the comment that you'd been blocked, many people have and they've gone on to be very productive wikipedians, I just noticed it and noticed your little edit war today, and thought I'd make the suggestion. Worm   17:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Danjel. Sorry I've neglected this, I've been away at a wedding for the weekend. Pdfpdf has agreed to User:Danjel and User:Pdfpdf voluntarily agree to refrain from commenting on one another at any venue on Wikipedia and from editing each others user talk pages for an indefinite period of time. I was wondering if you would be willing to agree to the same so we can all move on?  Worm   08:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh. I had a long response that I thought I had posted in response to your post above. Don't know where it's gone; perhaps it's still sitting there on my work computer.


 * Sure I'll agree to it, but it doesn't achieve anything. - danjel  (talk to me) 10:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll look forward to the long response ;) It may not achieve anything, but it's worth trying. He has agreed not to comment on you, which should at least alleviate the issues regarding his conduct and you've agreed not to post on his talk page, which appears to be one of his largest gripes. Both of you have agreed to the vice versa to. I'm hoping we can move forward and build an encyclopedia, but if there's any more problems, you know where to find me.  Worm   10:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MacRobertsonGHS.png
 Thanks for uploading File:MacRobertsonGHS.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Carmel School
Yes, sorry you are right about the copyright issue with the page Carmel School (Perth). Although I could very well easily get permission from the creator of that website to grant permission for its contant to be replicated on the page, I hadn't actually done that... on the other issue, I'm afraid as far as websites go, there appears to be no 3rd-party souces what-so-ever (believe me, I've searched..). I may try to gain access to books or documents on the school to use as sources for the article, but for now, it is not at the top of my priority list.--Coin945 (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. It's not bad content; I'm sure if you go through it and put it in your own words (and omitted the non-neutral bits and pieces) then it'd be acceptable. Want to have a go? - danjel  (talk to me) 02:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Top Ryde Shopping Centre not largest shopping centre nor largest development.
Hi Danjel, I am just telling you this, as it is fair for you to know. You were the one who edited the Top Ryde shopping centre article, and who added "This makes the centre the largest shopping centre in Australia". Now the only problem with that is, that it is not the largest, infact far from it. I can name 30 shopping centres in Australia that are larger in size as well as contain more stores. A top example is Chadstone Shopping Centre, which is not only Australia's largest shopping centre, but the Southern Hemisphere's by stores and size. Yor edit also included, the centre is on 6 levels, when in fact the centre is on 5, 1 or 2 or even 3 stores on a 6th level, dosent mean the whole centre is on 6. Even if it was on 6 levels, shopping centre's like Westfield Bondi Junction would have the exact same floor count. And Westfield Doncaster has an 8-storey office tower with a few shops in it...would that make the centre 8 storeys high? offcourse not. Thankyou :) if you have anything you would like to say feel free to discuss on my talk page :) MelbourneStar1 (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * G'day MelbourneStar1,


 * I was paraphrasing what was already there in regards to the relative size, if I recall correctly. I'm not particularly bothered if it's an error, semantically or factually. Thanks for catching it


 * As for the number of levels, there's two major levels, then Ground, 1st Floor, the floor on which Strike Bowling is being developed, and the floor(s) for the cinemas. That's 6. Actually it'd be 7, with the two levels of cinemas... But... - danjel  (talk to me) 04:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry If I seemed a little un-chilled about the whole thing, It's just that I want facts to be correct, thats all :)

with reguards to how many floors the shopping centre has, I still take my stand, because there are shopping centres world wide that include buildings attached to them, Highrise buildings infact, that range from 40 to even 60 floors.......making the centre in this case 40-60 floors high which is not correct. A proper floor count for a shopping centre, is the whole shopping centre, not just a few stores. You can keep that the centre is 5 levels (if the majority of it is 5 levels) and you can say that the centre has this store and that store that are 6 levels high... so in other words, you can have floor counts for the whole shopping centre, and also floor counts for some individual stores, done seperately :) MelbourneStar1 (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not counting the residential towers, because I agree with you. They're not actually part of the shopping centre. But the cinemas are, and should be counted. It specifies that the top floor(s) are cinemas, so I don't see any reason to add extraneous detail. - danjel  (talk to me) 05:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, your current edit that you just made on the article --- thats what I am looking for. That is correct. Thankyou! :) MelbourneStar1 (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. :) - danjel  (talk to me) 10:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Bidgee
Thank you for your kind words about me to that user...I just took a read at it...before she removed it. She has not even read my apology to her :/ But thank you, It is always great to have support. :)-- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You didn't do anything wrong. Well... Technically you were in the wrong, but Bidgee handled it very badly and there was no basis for the warning that s/he gave you. Need any help at any point, get in touch. I've got your talkpage watched. - danjel  (talk to me) 08:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Danjel, Fact is add "th" to a date within the article just make an edit summary was disruptive to the article, I fixed it twice (after a number of other fixes and having to keep re-fixing the article) and wasn't wanting to fix it for the third time. The warning I gave did have basis an the fact is your bad faith and false warning is very much unwelcome and the fact you're a teacher, you should know better. Clearly you're a one sided editor, how about spending sometime in my shoes? @MelbourneStar1, I haven't had a chance to read my email. Bidgee (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You'll note above that I told MelbourneStar that he was in the wrong. But you handled it very badly. You should have gone to the talk page and directed MelbourneStar there. Later, your warning on MelbourneStar for "Personal Attacks" for his post to your talk page was just plain wrong. Hence my warning [] to you for inappropriate use of a warning template.


 * Yep, I'm a teacher. Means I don't excuse bullshit from one kid just because they were in the right at some stage (seriously, wtf). - danjel  (talk to me) 10:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * MelbourneStar1's comment was directed at me personally, not at my editing/contributions. I'll quote "Some people have never used the word reference let alone no the definition, so don't go calling me disruptive, because the only person I see disruptive, is you." the fact is my warning is/was correct as was the warning to you but the warning you placed was unwarranted. Bidgee (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You started it by calling him disruptive instead of taking it to the talk page. As I also said in the warning, he said no worse than you. In the absence of taking it to the talkpage, what you said was inflammatory.


 * In any case, you haven't addressed that critical point that you should have taken it to the talk page, so I take it you concede on that issue. I gather, then, that the lesson is learned, that you won't bite the newcomers and you won't ignore basic dispute avoidance strategies like taking it to the talk page. So this conversation must be over. - danjel  (talk to me) 10:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I was out of line I admit that. Thankyou, If I do need any help with anything, you'll be first to know :) And although I am young, I am smart (don't want to blow my own trumpet) and I am building a bit of a reputation of being "challenged" by a few users. In the end of a challenge, It usually ends in my favor, and me becoming 'friends' with the other users. So If you have any problems (which I am most likely positive you wont) make sure you nudge me, and i'll play my course in the problem, by supporting you, and attempting to fix the issue. Thankyou -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

@Bidgee, Oh so you have just had time to cause a dispute. Sorry, guess I was a bit too hasty apologizing, for something I didnt know I was doing wrong. I did not know that adding a "th" after 5 (dates), is a disruption. Maybe if you were a little understanding, also reading the talk pages, there wouldnt of had been a dispute. Instead you are on your high horse acting as if you never make a mistake. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh and Bidgee you don't have to respond to this, because what you have done is enough as a response to me thank you. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies
I ought apologize for my remark on the above situation. While it was amusing to me, I imagine it was not amusing to you and silence on my part would have been golden. Shamefacedly, Danger (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC) PS. I am sorry that you are allergic to prawns; I won't hold it against you. Danger (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. Outside looking in, I probably would have thought it was hilarious as well. :) - danjel  (talk to me) 09:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, If you don't mind me asking, what did you do Danger? I am not going to get angry or anything...I am just curious because it is not showing up in the 'view history' section :S -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the diff. It's especially funny because Bidgee's template here could be interpreted either as a "See how you like it!" and thus itself a misuse of a warning template or as an ironic comment on the effectiveness of templating the regulars, or perhaps something else less amusing. All very "meta", as we say around here. It's probably appropriate to note that my favorite joke is "What do an apple and a mailbox have in common?", so I really know nothing about humor. --Danger (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey it made me chuckle too, but I thought best not laugh at something that was clearly getting some people's back's up. But more importantly... what DO an apple and a mailbox have in common?  Worm   10:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm curious also... - danjel  (talk to me) 10:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither can ride a bicycle of course! Don't ask why it's so funny; the explanation involves set theory and makes me a little sad. --Danger (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ... - danjel  (talk to me) 10:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Assistance :)
Hi Danjel I sent you a message via Hotmail, reguarding a certain article. Please get back to me ASAP. Thankyou!! -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. Your argument was fairly conclusive. The one thing I can suggest that these sorts of things be brought to the attention of WP:AWNB? - danjel  (talk to me) 09:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much!
 * with the Australian Wiki Board, I cant show them as they wont b able to do anything, because 2010 is for the world, and there is a seperate 2010 article for countries individual, but Julia is notable enough to appear on the world 2010 just like those other PM's and Presidents have :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but they're able to comment on the notability of the issue. - danjel  (talk to me) 09:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U User:Bidgee
Based on advice from User:Strange Passerby I have raised a User RFC regarding User:Bidgee. I have copied your statement from the ANI. You should indicate at the RFC whether you endorse the statement, and if necessary, provide any additional information. The RFC is located at Requests_for_comment/Bidgee.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I added my name to the "users who have tried but failed to resolve the dispute", as i tried apologising. If its wrong, ill remove it. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Pdfpdf.
I can't say I was impressed with his comment, but if you check the diffs, "whatever he delete" was nothing. The original text included the bracketed words, implying he was censoring his comments. Since he did not say anything derogatory, or indeed actually mention you by name, I suggest you step back from the matter and allow it to pass. If an RfC on Bidgee goes ahead, your interaction with Pdfpdf will be up for review, which I would expect both of you to comment on - but since someone came to his talk page to specifically discuss your interaction with him, I believe he did not act unreasonably. Worm   TT   07:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not the point that he censored himself. I know he didn't. It's that he essentially added a wildcard insult, one that can be substituted with whatever personal attack the reader prefers. It's still a personal attack, against the spirit of our agreement and I object strongly. - danjel  (talk to me) 07:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You are right, it is against the spirit of your agreement. It is indeed clear from the comment that he does not approve of you or your "behaviour", hence why I am not impressed. But a user came directly to him regarding your joint interaction which DOES have similarities to the Bidgee case and I do believe he was restrained in his response. I counselled him to not comment at the RfC to keep the drama down and to his credit he did just that.
 * Now, I'd like you to have a look at your own editing practises, especially your dispute resolution. Wikipedia is not a classroom of children (however much some users act like it), it is a community, where collaborative editing and consensus are paramount. The fact that you have got yourself into two seperate incidents in as many months is not a good thing. There are ways of escalating problems and ways of reducing them. I'm now at work by the way, and I've got your page watchlisted, so I should be able to reply quickly.   Worm    TT   09:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A backhanded insult is not "restrained". It's a completely unwarranted personal attack that was absolutely unnecessary for his line of discussion. If you agree and feel it was inappropriate, then call him on it and counsel him to strikethrough instead of just telling me how much you disapprove.
 * I expect to get into disagreements regularly. I edit school pages, which bring me into conflict with WP:SPA editors who have significant conflicts of interest. I am WP:BOLD and rely on templates to maintain specificity and neutrality (rather than rely on individualised wording which may or may not communicate the central issue, and may or may not be even more inflammatory than the template). This shouldn't piss off regular editors, and there are a dozen cases where it doesn't, for every case where it does, but I'm not about to let bullies win just because they're loud, wikilawywering and uncivil.
 * I get that you don't like this. I get that you're trying to be "Switzerland". I presume one day you'll put forward an RfA and will use this conflict as part of your portfolio to show what a great guy/girl you are (and you are). But here, you're being ineffective, because you're standing by and watching one party piss on the agreement. So, at the moment, I'm not going to be particularly receptive to feedback from you am I? - danjel  (talk to me) 10:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The 'censored' wording in question was entirely unnecessary, and it took more effort to include the specially formatted text than it would to say 'what he really meant'. So it wasn't at all 'restrained'. One restrains oneself from making a particular comment by not commenting, not by couching it in euphemism.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeffro, I would have preferred he replied with "I'm sorry, but I've agreed not to discuss that user", but since an editor came to his page specifically with regards to the dispute I maintain my opinion that his response was a "restrained" one.  Worm    TT   11:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Danjel, yes, I do feel that it was inappropriate, but not to the level that it was worth doing anything over. I also felt your comments regarding him on the RfC were inappropriate, but again not to the level that it was worth doing anything over. The "insult" only implies his disapproval, it does not go any further - and if he had I would have said something. I'm not going to go and tell him off because your feelings were hurt. If you feel I'm being unreasonable, you do have other avenues open to you, WP:WQA would be a suggestion, but I don't think you'll get a response you are happier with.
 * As for disagreements, there's nothing wrong with them. Yes, you do edit in an area that full of people with COI. But that doesn't mean that you need to escalate things. You're an intelligent person and you must be able to see that it is possible to end conflicts where both parties leave happy or at least content. I understand your ideology on templating, though I don't agree with it, but at very least will you consider using subst: to put the text on the page and editing it appropriately? For example this would be less inappropriate if it did not suggest he do tests in the sandbox.
 * I appreciate your compliment and re RfA, it's not currently on my radar and I intend to have a much more interesting portfolio if I ever do run, so do please believe that I am actually trying to help here. Looking at what's happened in the last few hours, one party has attempted to withdraw, while the other appears to be attempting to escalate.   Worm    TT   11:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Where did I say anything about Pdfpdf's character? I don't think I mentioned him or his character by name or otherwise even once.
 * It's up to you. At the moment, the agreement that you brokered is up in the air. The history at Talk:Concordia_College,_Adelaide, and Talk:Xavier_College will show that not once have I attacked him personally, yet he does so again and again flagrantly. And again now, and you haven't said a thing. How neutral are you? It is not helping for you to allow one side to treat WP:CIVIL and the spirit of our agreement with such disdain. I'll consider our agreement null and void if I have to notify him (as is required) of a WQA report. - danjel  (talk to me) 11:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not going to chastise Pdfpdf for a comment I feel is not worth acting on and I am under no obligation to do so. Neither talk page has been edited by either of you since 21 Jan, I'm not sure what your point is there. If you feel the need to go to WQA regarding his comment, then yes, I will also consider the agreement null and void and will accept that I have failed in this matter. It's the way things go, you can't help everyone. As to my neutrality, I'm an outside editor attempting to help - nothing more, nothing less.   Worm    TT   11:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sleep well, speak to you when you are rested  Worm    TT   12:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Didnt get to say Sorry :S
I didnt get to apologize to you seperately a few days ago for that small argument that we had on Jeffro77's talk page...And i just wanted to say I am Sorry. I was just a little stressed out...Didnt know what to do. So thankyou and sorry. I still cant believe Bidgee is gone. I know he was a difficult editor, but to be real honest, I hope he comes back -- but with a fresh mind, and I hope he uses wikipedia like the rest of us. So yeh...I am Sorry. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries. If there's anything I can do (or advice I can give) to reduce stress, then let me know. - danjel  (talk to me) 10:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Danjel :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 11:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ocean Reef SHS
Strangely, it is independent *and* state. Put it down to strange Liberal ideology. (See this link for further clarification.) Orderinchaos 18:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)




 * That could probably do with a bit of prose to explain. Cheers and thanks for catching it. - danjel  (talk to me) 00:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Orderinchaos 08:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollbacker request
You are now a rollbacker. Please review the features of this tool. --Kudpung (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer request
You are now a reviewer. Please review the features of this function. Kudpung (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks mate. - danjel  (talk to me) 14:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Favor / Help
Hi Danjel! lol you must be getting sick of me... Sorry, I was just wondering if you would be able to help me upload an image to Wikipedia. I have never done it before...I have tried, but havent gotten any further. I am worried about Copyright violations etc. If you can help me, the image I wasnt to upload...It is of a character from the show Law & Order: SVU. I have an IPod touch therefore meaning i go to Itunes and can buy movies shows etc. I bought an SVU episode, and I got a few images of this character that I would like to upload on to Wikipedia...The only problem is, Is that I dont know if copy laws etc. will let me upload it. Whats more worse is that I don't even know how to upload :| Would you please help me? Thankyou! :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't know this well enough. For the most part, I deal with fair use in regards to logo usage (otherwise photos I or someone else have taken and released under CC).
 * I would suggest you go to WP:HELPDESK or WP:IMAGEHELP and ask there. Honestly, I'm not sure if screenshots are acceptable in regards to fair use (but I have no idea).
 * Special:Upload is where you upload images. But I'd seek the answer as to whether it's fair use or not first. - danjel  (talk to me) 08:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk page stalker It should be fine as long as it's low quality, the helps illustrate the article, and there's no equivalent possible. See for example Dr. Lisa Cuddy from House, has a non-free image of the character from a promo. More than one, I think you'd have to have a good reason for though. Iconic scene or something.  Worm    TT   09:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank You Danjel and Worm for the Help !! :) I have also asked one of the people at the Image Copyright desk, and they've helped me too. :) "Talk page stalker" lol whats that supposed to mean? :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OHH right! LOL now I understand what you meant...geez I am like half asleep today. Worm don't worry...I do that all the time! :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It means I have danjel's talk page watchlisted, so I might reply to topics that technically have nothing to do with me :) Hopefully you'll be ok for now (with so many people helping out too!), but give me a shout if you get stuck!  Worm    TT   09:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Issues with uploading pictures to Douglas S. Freeman High School
Danjel, I am having problems uploading the DSF school picture to the wiki page. It seems that the copyright is causing issues and the photo is being flagged by users. Plus, it is too big. The photo is from http://www.henrico.k12.va.us/hs/freeman/; I assume it would be OK to use the photo from the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteilberg (talk • contribs) 15:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jon that it would be best to not use a photo that's already there at the website. Grab a digital camera and take a better photo yourself. I'd lend you mine, but... :) - danjel  (talk to me) 00:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha yes that would not be possible, but luckily DSF is out of school tomorrow for a teacher work day (Wednesday in the U.S., I think I remember reading you lived in Australia). I am about to remove it from the page and will work on using my digital camera to take a new picture. Rsteilberg 03:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteilberg (talk • contribs)

Macquarie College Jediism
You recently removed a section I placed in the Macquarie College Wiki page as you believed it constituted vandalism. The section regarding the Jedi population of the school may have some inaccuracies but I am willing to conduct research into the matter if you still feel the need to blame me for vandalism.

I can provide evidence that "Jediism" is a valid religion as per the definition of religion according to, "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion." In the 2001 Australian census more than 0.37% of the nation declared themselves "Jedi". The Jedi religion follows a belief system similar to Animism, in that everything has a "force" or spirit and that the spirit makes up part of the object. Jedi differs from animism in that it also incorporates a unification of these spirits into the omnipresent "force" which guards over all of the natural world. If that does not constitute the necessities of a religion then feel free to remove my post but otherwise feel free to prove yourself correct.

My reason for including this in the school's Wikipedia page is because I believe a knowledge of the demographic of a community is a necessity to fully understand the community. For example, try to explain a team sport without explaining the reasons why the players are playing. You get an idea but not the full picture. A school is a community and to say it does not have a demographic would be ignorant in the least. My backing for this response is my whole school life. I have been there and I understand the demographic and I strongly believe that a substantial population of "Jedi" reside within the school. Please revise your edit of the post. Thank You

Extreme survention (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * G'day Extreme Survention. Yeahhh... A lot of my friends put down Jedi in the last census (it'd be awesome if it ever got to be a large enough phenomenon that we had to organise scripture classes for it and so on).


 * I have no problem with the fact that there are "Jedis" in Australia, nor with the religion itself.


 * However, to include it in the Macquarie College article it must have a reference per WP:SOURCE, as it is sufficiently contentious that it can be subject to challenge. The source must be reliable per WP:RS. If you can satisfy these requirements, then I'll have no problem with it.


 * I'm redacting the warning on your talk page because it seems that you were legitimately seeking to add good information to the page, and I'll trust that you will seek to satisfy the Wikipedia policy requirements if you want to edit the information back in... But I'd be happy to help you if you need me. :) - danjel  (talk to me) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries
It's fine. I understand that you look out for problems regarding schools as noted on your User page. I don't know how you saw it as a lot of content considering I added a few words. No problem though, better safe than sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toxiicated (talk • contribs) 12:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Canberra Grammar School
Re : I'm not going to revert you because I don't like the ref either, but his article has the cites to back up his conviction, so no harm has been done in terms of WP:BLP. The refs on the list are only to verify that each person is in fact an alumnus (see WP:NLIST). That said, I'd like a better source verifying that fact... bou·le·var·dier (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, scratch that, I just found a better cite so I'm readding. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm not bothered so much about whether or not he was an alumnus. I'm bothered by calling him a murderer based only on... Well... Nothing verifiable.


 * If you have a better source, fantastic, revert me and add it in. - danjel  (talk to me) 13:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems a bit redundant to add sources verifying that he is a convicted murderer when his article (which is wikilinked) deals exclusively with that fact. We can probably just copy one of those cites across if we really have to... bou·le·var·dier (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right that it's redundant, but I think it's necessary per WP:BLP. An unsubstantiated claim (on an article, even if the claim is substantiated elsewhere) should be subject to immediate challenge and removal particularly where it is in reference to someone's character. Otherwise, how are we to rely on such statements? Readers can't always be expected to click through to their article.


 * In any case, the reference you've given does this more than adequately, I think. *shrug* - danjel  (talk to me) 22:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I fully admit to not being up on BLP policy ;) If you're comfortable with the new reference then that settles it for me. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Christ Church Grammar School
Hi Danjel, Re unexplained removal, beginners error!Weefreehans (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, Community Relations, before that school librarian. Weefreehans (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the info on honorifics Weefreehans (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Turramurra High School
Hi Danjel, If it is possible, could you not edit the Turramurra High School page. There are staff and responsible students from Turramurra High whom edit the page occasionally. We do find it very frustrating if the page gets edited by people outside Turramurra High, and we ask you do not. Thanks in advance

Vhalia5 (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Vhalia5


 * With all due respect, Vhalia, that's not a reasonable request. Wikipedia is a publicly editable encyclopedia and ownership of particular articles isn't applicable.


 * If you and your students are working on the page and wish to keep it quarantined until it is ready to publish, then I suggest that you take a copy to your userspace per WP:USERSPACE and WP:DRAFT. Once you have a working draft, I suggest that you take it to WP:EIA or WP:WPSCH to ask for feedback. - danjel  (talk to me) 14:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't mean as in own, it's just that we know what happens at Turramurra High. Sorry if I meant as in own, but you deleted something from the page relating to our school. I have seen other schools which have posts about the sports colours etc etc, and that is accepted, however, ours are deleted. We understand that sometimes, we may get things wrong, like the formatting, spelling etc etc, but that we had something related to the school. Or was it deleted for other reasons?

Oh, and what did you mean, as in you wanted to help??

Vhalia5 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Vhalia5


 * That's fine, but be aware of conflicts of interest and the temptation towards WP:PEACOCKery and so on and so forth.


 * I didn't delete the sports colours section. The two sections that I'm concerned about (and removed) were the Statement of Purpose section (which contravened WP:MISSION and the article guidelines at WP:WPSCH/AG) and the Duke of Edinburgh's Award section (which replicates an existing article).


 * I'm a public school advocate and I'm keen to see public schools better represented on wikipedia (actually I'm a teacher at a nearby public school, but I'm not going to out myself here. I'm experienced with schools article on wikipedia, and have worked with students on tasks involving wikipedia (see my userpage) so I'm offering my help with ensuring that any draft conforms with wikipedia policies and so on and so forth. - danjel  (talk to me) 14:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for feedback
I have replied to your request for feedback at Requests for feedback/2011 May 26. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Rose Bay Secondary College
Apparently I did review it, what do you know... I also gave you feedback last week Anyways, I have a quick question which should be easy to fix. Please take a look at the nomination at T:TDYK. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers. I've moved one of the ref's as that information comes from the BBPS Annual School Report. I'm happy either way but your alt is fine. Thanks again. Heh. - danjel  (talk to me) 09:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, everything is good to go. I've already approved it at T:TDYK, so we're golden. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. - danjel  (talk to me) 09:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Rose Bay Secondary College
Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Deleted items on "Gifted Education" page
Hello,

You removed a couple items I posted on the "gifted education" page, related to the Davidson Institute (http://www.davidsongifted.org/).

One of the items that was removed, the listing of the THINK Summer Institute, is generally thought of as one of the top gifted summer programs in the country, often listed on sites such as this one: http://giftedkids.about.com/od/educationoptions/tp/gifted_camps.htm.

As for the other section - the paragraph about the Davidson Institute - I wasn't exactly sure if that was the best section for it and if it was in the correct context. However, it was not intended to run as an advertisement, and if I had to make an argument for it's inclusion:

The Davidson Institute is an American organization that has received a great deal of acclaim and attention through it's programs over the last few years. The school that this organization runs, The Davidson Academy of Nevada, has been featured on the COVER of Time Magazine, a news piece on ABC Nightline, and USA Today (Source: http://www.davidsonacademy.unr.edu/Articles.aspx?ArticleID=212&NavID=9_1). Also, the Davidson Fellows scholarship program has been in the news in major publications all across the country on a yearly basis (http://www.davidsongifted.org/fellows/Article/Davidson_Fellows___Press_Room_360.aspx). Miraca Gross is also one of our Outside Consultants.

I don't have a lot of experience on Wikipedia, so sorry if I was in error in my posting. I do feel that at least the THINK Summer Institute (http://www.davidsongifted.org/think/) listing should be there however, as it is a nationally-recognized camp.

Thank you for your consideration!

(Mdlugosz (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)).


 * That's fine and all. But if we were to include the Davidson Institute, then we'd have to include other interesting places for gifted education, such as GERRIC (where I've worked with Prof. Gross, incidentally). This would clutter the article. I wouldn't be inclined to include it in the Gifted Education article as it is.


 * I'm not even sure if the Davidson Institute is notable enough to get an article. GERRIC doesn't, despite it's national (and in fact regional) influence in the area of gifted education. I note that concerns have been brought up previously. This is something which will need to be thought of in a bit more detail.


 * The program on the other hand could be worthwhile. I suggest that you add your program to List_of_gifted_and_talented_programmes.


 * Be very very careful of WP:COI. It seems that you're editing only in regards to the Davidson Institute and this gets people's attention in a bad way. - danjel  (talk to me) 06:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello - that makes sense, thank you for your reply. I'll keep that in mind. I am a bit surprised there is no GERRIC entry. Thanks again. (Mdlugosz (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC))

Maitland High Schools
Hi, I will edit the section but didn't want to barge straight in. 11:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otherthinker (talk • contribs)

Random
Danjel! Long time no chat! :)

Sorry to bother you, but would it be possible if you could give me the pros/cons of this draft I have made (which is 95% completed in my opinion). My draft obviously isn't like your user drafts of articles how they're full of information - my article, on a person, isn't full...but is notable, as I have many reliable sources.

Anyway, I know you're sleeping right now, (what I should be doing - Got school tommorow (fun :/ )) but I was wondering, if you could possibly help me out and quickly review it asap. Thank you :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 13:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * G'day. Go to bed! :P


 * I took a look and made some minor changes and left a few questions in comment tags. Seems like good work.


 * Biographies are not my strong point. I'll tell you a story: When I was at uni, I got a job at a bookstore, they stuck me in the biographies section, I quit shortly thereafter. Heh.


 * Take it easy. Need any help with schoolwork, get in touch. - danjel  (talk to me) 12:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thankyou so much!! This is so exciting! :)


 * To answer your two questions, a) Does this source provide the quotes given? - In the websites section "Where does your motivation come from?" the quote is in there :)


 * b) is this last paragraph necessary? (regarding stolen property) - I had added it in because the SMH "made a fuss" about it. If it's not really needed I shall remove it. Thanks again, heaps! -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 12:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good oh. I didn't really check your references with too much effort... I figure you know what you're doing in that regard. Good luck on improving it further. - danjel  (talk to me) 12:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Danjel! I added a bit more to the Bodybuilding section, as well as removed the sentence regarding personal bellongings, just to be on the safe side of things. Well, I think I should ask the question: Should I submit it for Review? -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 13:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * They're not going to say more than people have already said... I'd mention it to an appropriate project, though (no idea which one that would be) and see if you can rouse up someone to make some suggestions.


 * Once you move it to mainspace, nominate it for WP:DYK. This can sometimes be a roundabout way of improving articles. - danjel  (talk to me) 13:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But don't I need to go through this process first? and on another note, would I be able to make a redlink in an article then put the current article content in there? (press edit, then write somewhere the name of the article, press preview, and then press redlink which takes you to a page that says "create this page........copy all the info in my current article to this new article, and there you have it) <--- make sense?? the purpose would be to change the article name from "Aziz Sergeyevich Shavershian" to "Aziz Shavershian" -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 13:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No. You don't have to go through the WP:AFC process as you're a registered user (it's only really for IP's to suggest and draft up pages that they'd like to see). You don't have to have regard for the draft submitted to AFC (particularly as it's staggeringly incomplete).

Once you feel your draft is ready, then WP:MOVE your article from your userspace to mainspace.

After that, yeah, go through and find some articles that mention your subject and link them through to your article. And, yeah, WP:DYK. - danjel  (talk to me) 00:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Will do that now, once done also will nom. for DYK. And "particularly as it's staggeringly incomplete" <-- isn't my article already complete? confused. Thanks :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 08:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, your's is fine. What was supplied over at AFC is incomplete. - danjel  (talk to me) 08:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh righto, thanks :) -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Will this is just great...can't move it to the title because there is already an article, that is under a speedy-deletion nom, that stands in the way. What should I do? and once this article is deleted (?) what happens if the article I created gets a speedy deletion tag?? -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Rescue it. I think that the content you have written up demonstrates notability (keeping in mind my acknowledged complete disinterest in all things biographical), so add/substitute your content in and argue against it's deletion.  &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Danjel, this will sound absolutely selfish but with all due respect to this editor, I want to be the one who created it. Childish, it is, (still am), but I have never created an article about a person...I tried so hard to get this on the airport, and now I want to take my chances flying it off ground, by myself. I'll be honest with you, I feel saddened and annoyed that the hours of research + work I made (Homework came second), has to be merged into an article made by someone else, just because they didn't add sources. I'm selfish and I know it. I complain about everything...I get annoyed over the tinyiest things, but seriously, that's me. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 09:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... Not sure what to suggest here. It's always the risk you run having a draft sit in userspace that someone else will beat you to the punch. You could always wait for the AfD to go through, but... Seems counterproductive.


 * I think you have to think in terms of owning the expansion of the article. I completely redrafted and rewrote Rose Bay Secondary College expanding the article by about 10,000 odd characters (with this edit:, earning me my second DYK at: ). I'm pretty happy with that... Consider it. :)


 * P.S.: You know I'm a Teacher right? Do your homework. :P  &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * haha, offcourse I do ^^


 * And what happens if I told my friends at school I created the article (did tell them)... because someone else has created it. For example, if this was about a extremely famous person such as Lady Gaga, Michael Jackson etc...would we be even having this discussion? Also, my whole reason for joining the project was to edit articles....and create them. I'm not ruling out a "Articles I Created" section...but this will be another article that won't be mentioned there. See Bayside Shopping Centre...this article had been a redirect with 600+bytes...I changed it to 6,000+bytes...but I didn't create the article...and that's unfortunate to me, because that only leaves 3 articles I have made, that aren't even that good in the first place. :/


 * Being the selfish person I am, how long do I have to wait until the article there, is deleted? -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 10:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No idea how long it takes... Being that a couple of editors seem to have objected, it's up to an admin somewhere.


 * ... *shrug* I've only technically created one article (Murray Farm Public School) as long as I've been here and as much other work as I've done. Personally, as may have become obvious, I'm much more proud of the two DYK's that I've had (being that they've featured on the front page of the whole site, a much bigger bragging point).  &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have one more idea, before I do the unconstructive thing, of waiting :| ....okay, here goes: I do not rename it, I keep it with the middle-name, then once the other article is deleted *fingers crossed*, I'll redirect the middle name one, to the article with his first and last name. Will it work, or will my move just be deleted? -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 10:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems a bit WP:GAMEy. I wouldn't recommend it.  &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Do me a favor, never, ever, vote for me as administrator, if I ever run for it. Although very tempting to do as I said...I can't because that is totally forbidden...and I just joined the project less than a year ago. Wooh...long fun wait in for me :P -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 10:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Not particularly interested in having a mop either. But mainly because, you know, wife, friends, class of 27 kids, etc.  &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Geez, I wish my teachers had their own Wikipedia accounts, assigning article editing as homework. Most of them have the anti-wikipedia mind saying "oh, it's not reliable", well I don't see any other encyclopedia's run by thousands of people on the internet, any more reliable than this. Barring that, I'll be waiting till midnight - if that article is not deleted :( I'll have no other choice to unfortunately merge mine into it...that's if I don't decide to wait a day or so, but that's doubted because I'm very impatient, as you can see. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 11:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good luck. :P If you need help convincing teachers, get in touch.  &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)