User talk:Five Years/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is Archive #6 for User talk:Five Years
Archive This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalise an old topic, bring it up on User talk:Five Years.

AfD nomination of Craig White (footballer)[edit]

An editor has nominated Craig White (footballer), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig White (footballer) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey uniform[edit]

My mistake -- didn't realize you had changed usernames. Thanks, NawlinWiki 13:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TEE[edit]

Firstly please dont leave edit summaries like that again, WP:CIVIL applies to all edits not just whats on talk pages.

TEE - I presume your referring to the Tertiary Entrance Exam. You would treat as for any other article. Why is it notable? what is it? how does it work, inc examples give general level requirements for a small sample of Uni courses. History what was before who created etc. Avoid excessive detail on subject matter. included recent results historical highest scores overall not by subject, Gnangarra 13:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything. Have a read of some articles in Category:Australian Certificate of Education none of which seem to be all that flash, but perhaps you may get some ideas.
And mind your language please. —Moondyne 14:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

Your peer review request is malformed in some way. (I submitted one right after you). You may want to figure out how to fix it, or re-submit it. I think you may have forgotten to put in
===[[ARTICLE NAME HERE]]===
with your request/ comment. See Wikipedia:Peer_review and the "nomination procedure" section. -- Yellowdesk 15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your old user page[edit]

Do you want it deleted? Hesperian 23:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Hey,

I've not been on wikipedia much recenly - I have been working on wikimania projcets / videowikinews (see the opener at http://www.videowikinews.spaces.live.com etc. so, I micht take a while to respond.... I think the uniform section is great - definately add it to the page!

If you need to contact me im the future, you might wanna email me

thanx

--talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 05:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Missing image Image:PSA Badge1.JPG[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:PSA Badge1.JPG, by Thewinchester, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:PSA Badge1.JPG is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:PSA Badge1.JPG, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:PSA Badge1.JPG itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 08:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YechielMan's RFA[edit]

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. YechielMan 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended[edit]

For using a sockpuppet to evade your block, your block has been extended to six months. Hesperian 07:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For using a sockpuppet to evade your block, your block has been extended to one year. Hesperian 12:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offer[edit]

In response to your email, and after discussing the matter with others, we are prepared to set your block to expire one month from now, i.e. on 10 July. Essentially we would be requiring you to sit out only your original block, with all penalties for sockpuppeteering lifted. Once unblocked, you must agree to a three month period of probation, during which you will not create any new articles unless they have been vetted and approved by OIC, Moondyne, Gnangarra or myself. Obviously any further serious policy violations such as sockpuppetry would see this arrangement annulled and your good self blocked for at least the one year currently in place. What do you say?

Hesperian 11:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, 'articles' includes templates, infoboxes and projects. —Moondyne 11:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i.e. anything outside your own userspace. Orderinchaos 11:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I was about to say:
Yes, and categories, portals, essays, proposals, redirects, disambiguation pages.... Essentially, no new pages except for first-posts on talk pages, and whatever you want in your user space. Note, for example, that it is not possible to AfD an article without creating a new page in the Wikipedia space, so during your probation period you will not be nominating articles for deletion without first running it past one of us. Hesperian 12:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I accept this offer. And thank all of you very much for the kindness you have shown to me. I will be back on 11 July 2007. Once again, thank you very much. All the best. Twenty Years 13:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done [1] Hesperian 13:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question, does this "no creating outside of userspace" include uploading images? I dont mind either way, just for reference. Twenty Years 13:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it includes images, on Wikipedia. Our arrangement does not extend to Commons - and indeed you are not currently blocked from Commons - so if you want to upload and organise images on Commons now or during your probationary period, you go for it. But note that Commons accepts only free (e.g. public domain) images. Any copyrighted images that you want to use under fair use provisions would have to be uploaded here on Wikipedia, so would be subject to the above conditions. Hesperian 00:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okies, all of the images are going to be PD-Australia images so that wont be a problem. Awesome. Thanks Twenty Years 09:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Received your email. All the images are PD, so can be uploaded to commons, so there's not need to check them with us. Both the articles you propose to write are notable enough. There's no need to sandbox them first - feel free to write them directly in article space. Hesperian 12:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Received your email. They would be better on Commons, because then other language Wikipedias would be able to use them, if ever another language Wikipedia decides to write an article on Aquinas. But if you really want to upload them to the English Wikipedia, then that's fine. All approved. Hesperian 05:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Received your email. I suggest you ask OIC about road notability, or post it here for all to see. Hesperian 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please ammend my user talk page, per my return date on my talk page, thanks. Twenty Years 13:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Creation[edit]

For WA Admins use: Please leave a support or oppose notice under any proposal that you feel deserves a wiki article;

Roads in WA[edit]

Publishers[edit]

People[edit]

Per my comment above. See Supreme Court of Western Australia —Moondyne 08:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Organisations[edit]

  • Edmund Rice Education Australia - a newly formed (i believe) educational group which is taking over the governance of all Christian Brothers Schools as part of their re-structuring program (1)
    • Oppose, unless significant secondary sources found. At this stage, that organisation could only be described as non-notable per WP standards. —Moondyne 08:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1 - Primary there is about 35 other souces from schools related to this organisation (i know theyre all primary). I think in time, this will eventually meet WP:N. It has 37 members - its gotta be notable!...eventually. Twenty Years 13:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not notable until people(WP:RS) outside the organisation and its members start writing about the organisation. Gnangarra 11:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough, from what ive heard, the organisation isnt even officially "active" as yet, it doesnt come online/info effect until October. It will prob be notable enough in a year or two. Thanks anyway Twenty Years 11:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Weak OK for the first one, but oppose for the second. The Wikipedia search should find the article in the 1st few entries of suggested links for most permutations of associated locations. We don't need a redirect for every single ambiguous location name. —Moondyne 02:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, made. ty.

Can you have a look at my redirects section on my talk page. I think its quite valuable, provided 2 of many refs to support it. It appears your online, and i dont know any other WA's on. Thanks alot. Twenty Years 02:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a veto situation rather than a vote situation. Moondyne says no to the second redirect, so no is your answer there. Personally, neither of these redirects are ridiculous enough to exceed my threshold of apathy. You can interpret that as support for the first redirect if you want. Hesperian 02:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you speak to OIC...[edit]

...ask him what my #1 wikipedia pet peeve is. You'll get a whole back story and information about many a phonecall on these matters, but needless to say infoboxes are your friend. Cheers, Thewinchester (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for that, you'll get the backstory on why I hate articles (specially bios) without infoboxes. Thewinchester (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must say he sounds damn funny ranting about it. :) It is important, though. Orderinchaos 01:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On that redirect, didn't look like it was working. Easiest way to do them is just click on redirect in the wiki markup box on the edit page (this is below the edit summary and save page buttons). Handy for when you just can't be stuffed handcoding wiki syntax. Thewinchester (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging WA articles talk pages[edit]

I have no problems with that. Go ahead. —Moondyne 10:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

Can i move this page All Saints College Western Australia? to All Saints College, Perth? also Chisolm Catholic College (Perth) to Chisolm Catholic College, Perth? Twenty Years 11:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. If you're pretty sure no-one will mind, move the page and leave a friendly message on the talk page explaining why you did it. If you're not so sure, propose it on the talk page first, then wait a day or so to see if anyone responds. If you get reverted, be cool about it, and discuss. Hesperian 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for future reference, do i have permission to start talk pages or not? Thanks Twenty Years 11:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay with me. Hesperian 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's updated by a bot. It can take anywhere from a day to a week. The log is here. Hesperian 12:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks Twenty Years for your importance and quality additions to the Aboriginal History of Western Australia page. John D. Croft 03:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mark's College[edit]

Hi Twenty Years, thanks for commenting on the St. Mark's discussion page. I think the majority of the regular editors live at the college, so it's good to have another third-party editor there. Username nought 09:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think a peer review is a good idea. You should suggest it to the other editors on the discussions page. Username nought 04:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

grumpy[edit]

Apologies for just changing the rating. Do add your assessment on the correct page and have a go at assessment yourself. Its not tricky. However we do have to keep an eye on self assessment as we could end up with a million FAs (and no decent articles). Cheers Victuallers 09:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk headers[edit]

Are usually added on after a discussion has commenced and there are signs that some of the policies, rules or conventions are being broken or abused... unless someone has very specifically asked you to add them, I would humbly suggest you dont add them to pages with no conversation noted yet SatuSuro 09:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well some things on some talk pages deserve one of them immediately if unsigned comments or dubious comments are found SatuSuro 09:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cripes trust you to invoke an android mouse bot! :) yup to take the old hasluck talk page out seems like a good idea (as long as there is one at the new art of course) really odd it didnt get moved as well - cheers SatuSuro 14:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

You can add |class=Cat, as in {{WP Australia|WA=yes|class=Cat}} —Moondyne 11:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but they enter the "unassessed category", how do i get them out of that category? Twenty Years 11:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that that may be a bug in the template code, but I'm no expert on that. You could just ignore it or if you like post a query at Template talk:WP Australia. —Moondyne 11:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do have further comment on this issue on friday SatuSuro 15:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to the comment - can see how to do it but would need consensus as would add about 1k to the code. Orderinchaos 00:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Enough Rope[edit]

The notability tag you placed on the article has been removed - not by me, but I entirely support its removal. Notability for bands and ensembles is supposedly laid-out in WP:MUSIC which you will see is fairly generous in allowing most performers a space in WP. Remember, that is only a guideline also. For your information, there is no surer way of getting yourself into conflicts that questioning notability of articles in the music area. I'm not saying for you to stop questioning things, but be warned. Also, tagging articles for improvement or problems, without a track record of improving them yourself really gets up peoples noses, especially mine. Much better to take it up personally with the main editor on their talk page or via email. —Moondyne 04:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is all well and good.Twenty Years 08:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google will never have and does not have anywhere near the power to check a whole range of items that are eminently notable - even the library of congress database in the states has better reach in a certain way - if you wish to have a few items thrown in your direction to test your vocabulary beyond google, shout SatuSuro 14:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP Australia template page[edit]

Is the last place to go to understand what is confusing there. If you are going to find an article about JOE BLOW who is a west australian cricket player that has escaped the eagle eye of the cricket project (very unlikely this is an example only). If the talk page of that article is empty - it needs {{WP Australia}} first and foremost. If you wish to help further than that - and you know the player is living, and west australian - you can add inside the tag above to make it {{WP Australia|WA=yes}} and {{WPBiography|living=yes}} if it is bleeding obvious that it is a stub and the guy had only one game {{WP Australia|WA=yes|class=stub|importance=low}} .

Dont worry about categories more than - if you find a category page that is blank - Category:Fremantle Ballet Dancers you should add {{WP Australia|class=cat|Perth-yes}} and not even venture to worry about cat or NA or the differences - or assessment or whatever. Start worrying about that, and going off to the wrong pages to try to understand it at this stage will only cause grief. Stick to the easy stuff otherwise pass it on to the admins to muck around with. SatuSuro 15:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sat above. There's plenty of us around with the tools to help. I've done over 500 articles today for the new NSW project. Orderinchaos 15:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(withdrawn previous comment) To clarify it for all, i was not trying to understand it, i was trying to give my POV on what should happen. Apologies if this annoyed anyone. Twenty Years 15:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That much was understood. As explained at the page very early on, we've known ever since you raised it this morning what the problem is and how to fix it (and agree with the need to do so), but to do that isn't necessarily just a matter of flicking a switch, esp when we have nearly 30 subprojects hanging off it. I was attempting to get consensus to make that change, but it got lost in a blather of fly-bys from random people who don't understand the issue, so I'm not sure what the result will be Orderinchaos 15:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after more edit conflicts than...)

Anyways regarding the WA/Perth differentiation - heres my version - looks like order might chip in too -
OK a very valid point and a difficult one - some non project members have suggested that the two projects should be merged - but that might never happen.

IF and only IF it is clear that an article is specifically about a phenomenon/person/thing/place/bug/whatever that is within the metropolitan region (ie what you can see from the top of Central Park tower is one way to think of it) of Perth - and it is lying there in the WA=yes part of the tag - change it to - Perth=yes, BUT and there is a BUT - put a very brief explanation as to why or what you are doing that for on the talk page under comment. When in doubt (it might be cloudy, fog from the tower) leave it - perhaps a comment maybe this should be in.... - if you find a Perth=yes, and the bug or whatever is in Kunnanura in the article - do the swap the other way. When in doubt - leave it or refer it to the admins to choke over SatuSuro 15:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah if its so obvious one way or tother that freddy would see it do it, if it aint drop a note to one of us but ultimately as long as its in either project thats enough anyway really tagging is one of those tasks that just fill in time when the brain is too disfunctional to contribute directly into articles or where one goes to hide from pointless arguments about the type of coffee. Gnangarra 16:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With no insult to our Fred of course :) Orderinchaos 16:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm! I would have done Category:Fremantle Ballet Dancers as "WP Australia|class=cat|Perth-WA=yes!!", and slipped off without telling anyone! ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 19:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree why would you want to associate Fremantle with Perth ;) <tongue in cheek>Hey lets start project WP:FREO </tongue in cheek> Gnangarra 23:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um i get to see all these articles float across my watch space - come to the talk page and this↑ is going on? Better get the jugs of turkish coffee out while youre all dreaming up the freo project guys - theres ballet dancers (wheres Ali K when we need her touch) pipe bands the south terrace cappucino strip business history all the dissapeared bookshops and a very large workers history that could help such a project SatuSuro 03:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! A shiney star![edit]

The Surreal Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your constant great work and contributions on Aquinas College, Perth Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 09:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also am awarding you...

The Photographer's Barnstar
I award you this photography barnstar because of the amazing historical images which you have contributed to the Aquinas COllege, Perth article - such images are impossible to get hold of, nice job! Talk to symode09's or How's my driving? 09:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Archer[edit]

I removed the rating because I don't see how it relates in any way to the supposed quality scale at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australia/Assessment#Quality_scale. The scale states that, in order to be classed as "Start Class", the article must and I quote have "meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas". It further states that "Most articles in this category have the look of an article "under construction" and a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere." I cannot comprehend how on earth anyone could come to this conclusion about this article. It is a comprehensive, thoroughly-sourced biography, and cites about every damned source in existence.

Equally, the "B Class" rating states "Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR." How the hell is this the case here? Rebecca 12:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I suggest you read the actual guidelines that you're supposed to be interpreting. Specifically, any issues with headings only come up in determining whether an article is meant to be A Class, not B or Start. I also outright dispute your determining it on the lack of an infobox - I think an infobox would be utterly pointless in this article, and there is no mention of whether an article has one or not in that criteria. I'm sorry to be rude, but to slap that sort of rating on an article of this nature is downright offensive, and not in any way what the scale was actually intended for. Rebecca 12:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not listening to what I'm saying. According to the criteria you're supposed to be applying, infoboxes are not a requirement for any status, and headings are only supposed to come up if you're determining whether an article is up to "A Class" standard or not. Read the actual explanations of what "Start class" and "B Class" are supposed to mean - I even highlighted them for you above. To misapply them in this way is just downright offensive. Rebecca 12:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could I ask you to hold off on rating any more articles until you've gotten some sort of consensus that your interpretation of the guidelines is indeed correct? I'm not even sure from what you've said above that you've read them, and I'm noticing several other ratings which are dubious at best - you seem to be systematically underrating articles (at least those that aren't clear-cut stubs) by at least one-to-two ratings. Rebecca 14:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing[edit]

Edit conflict with Rebecca's request above.

I'm not convinced you're assessing articles properly. If you are, you're a genius, since you're doing about two per minute. Leaving you some loading time and typing time, I'd say you're spending about ten seconds looking at each article. And you're getting them wrong - no-one who had genuinely assessed Walter James would call it a stub - it contains all the basic elements of his life history, significance and legacy, and is probably only a few section headings away from B-class. Wahlenbergia stricta is surely a start; I doubt there's a great deal more to say about Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport, and calling Tim Winton a stub is very cheeky indeed. On the other hand, if you're marking articles so hard, why call Throssell ministry a start, when it is merely three sentences and a table? Hesperian 14:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Waifs is at least a B-class. John Butler Trio is the same. Thomas Peel is at the uppermost possible limit of what might be called a stub. Samuel Hamersley can't, I think, reasonably be called a stub. Swainsona formosa ios at least a B-class. You've classified Rabbit-proof fence as a stub (?!?) when it is on the uppermost side of B-class. Jean Jenkins is at least a B-class. Maitland Brown is the same. Rebecca 14:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ohmygosh - you rated Maitland Brown a start?! I spent weeks on that, and I'm fairly sure that when I invest substantial time in an article, the result isn't often "still weak in many areas", where "some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not" and "Substantial/major editing is needed". I value constructive criticism, but criticism based on a ten second viewing of an article is simply a worthless insult. Hesperian 02:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Twenty years I think you need to stop now, the assessments are appearing to be disruptive. Why not just concentrate all those article you were going to create. Gnangarra 14:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also when assessing care should be taken and articles that are nominated at WP:GA and WP:FA should never have the ratings altered what ever your opinion of the article. Gnangarra 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflicts) Id actually like to thank you for saying it. From my readings of policy. Maybe im a tad too harsh and should lighten up a tad. James is a borderline Start Class (i have since changed it). Wahlen isnt too close to start for my mind, it lacks depth in the subject (and many other things). Got tie me down perfect. Winton is a stub with a list attached, if that is start then damn. Throssel Min is a borderline case, because it lists the members of cabinet. The sweighing factor in my mind was the fact it cited two books in the references.
Okay, so enlighten me. Start is for articles that "[have] a meaningful amount of good content, but [are] still weak in many areas", for which "some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not", and for which "substantial/major editing is needed". If you've reviewed Walter James properly, you will have no problem identifying the weak and missing areas that require major editing. What are they, please.
As for Wahlen, you're absolutely spot on correct that "it lacks depth in the subject". But if you understood the assessment criteria you're applying, you would understand that "lacks depth" is a really great reason to say "this is Start not B". To call it a stub because it lacks depth shows that you don't actually know what you're doing.
Hesperian 02:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to rebecca: The waifs cites 1 ref (great B). I cbf explaining the rest....but, i will do it later. And leave a message on your talk page regarding this. Twenty Years 14:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the above discussion because it was inappropriately archived. Discussions should not be archived when they are currently under way; that is just rude. And if someone wishes to add to a discussion that has been archived, it is accepted practice to restore the discussion.

Wait a day or so (at least) to see if the discussion has petered out, then archive it if you wish.

Actually, I suspect you weren't archiving at all. This was just your way of saying "fuck off and leave me along, the lot of youse." Hesperian 02:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to participate here, you must be willing to discuss your actions. That is our culture. If you make a single edit while the above message remains in place here, you will be shown the door. Hesperian 02:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are a smart man Mr. Hesperian. And yes it was my way of saying i dont want to talk about anything at current, congrats - i have been found out. I have removed the message. What was meant by the message is come back 2morow when i have my head screwed on correctly and will address the issues. As for the above comments, i am going to ignore them for a few days and then adress them. Twenty Years 10:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gnangarra has observed that my message to you was rather harsh - he was commenting on the wording rather than the underlying content, I believe. For that I apologise. I am still learning the difficult art of articulating my position without betraying my anger. Hesperian 12:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please setup automated talk page archiving[edit]

It might be a good idea to setup automated talk page archiving to give you one less thing to deal with. Instructions on how to do this can be found at User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo. Cheers, Thewinchester (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately i am not interested in this. I like a clean userspace. Twenty Years 10:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for incivility. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

I cannot let some of your recent comments slide without a firm response. Edit summaries like "yes sir, yes sir, three bags full" and "yea yea watever" tell me you still have a problem assuming good faith and communicating civilly. I shouldn't have to remind that you are currently under a probationary period of unblock with your original block (for sockpuppetry) due to expire in June 2008. You agreed to various conditions in order to be unblocked and in those circumstances I would have thought that you'd be bending over backwards to not appear argumentative. When several experienced editors and administrators come to your talk page to politely tell you you're doing something wrong, listen. It is almost a certainty that it is you who are wrong and not them. —Moondyne 14:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this block, although i dont agree with it. My comments on talk pages i feel have been fair and constructive, and those edit summaries are me when im in a somewhat chirpy and happy mood, i now know that i cant do that again! Twenty Years 14:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juniper[edit]

If he was at hale - worth showing where you got that from somewhere somehow - I know he taught there and guildford -SatuSuro 05:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Very careful with face value - unless you see it in a ref - you should never assume - he taught only - I didnt think that category included teachers? SatuSuro 05:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Fair enough - thanks for taking time to explain - SatuSuro 05:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended reading[edit]

It would be really great if you would meditate upon this diff for a minute. I think you will find whole new vistas of wonderment will envelope your consciousness... or at least you might learn something kinda useful. Hesperian 05:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NC(S)[edit]

I believe convention across wikipedia, as well as schools is to use parenthesised disambiguation. As such, I think moving John XXIII College, Perth was counter-productive. It should also be noted that the school should probably be located at John XXIII College (Perth, Western Australia) Adam McCormick 14:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given there isn't likely to be one in Perth, Tasmania (a town still small enough to have a roadhouse!) if one was to do that, ", Australia" would be fine. I express no opinion either way on the naming convention or move. Orderinchaos 15:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FURs[edit]

The fair use rationale on the school logo looks good, but Image:CrestOfChristianBrothersOrder.png still needs one also. I'm sure if you use similar wording it should be fine. Thank you for addressing the issue. --Nehrams2020 18:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Five_Years/Archive_6&oldid=213225718"