Hi. You recently gave a number of pieces of useful advise in the above peer review. I have since replied to your comments and enacted some of your suggestions. Some further feedback would be welcome. Thanks a bunch. SorryGuy 04:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Twenty Years, in your hurry to rid us of articles on 50m2 Besa-block buildings with 5 students you may have missed that this one is on the Register of the National Estate with a good writeup and a bibliography of other works about the school. Would you reconsider your position ? - Peripitus (Talk) 09:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I don't know where to start... AfD or MfD? LOL. I should try to stay out of trouble. Auroranorth ( sign) 10:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Assuming that by " faculties" you mean a division of a university, according to our proposed article guidelines they are not notable unless important, unique, or remarkable in some way. Although the guidelines are just proposed, check out the relevant information. I would argue that they are not notable unless they have national recognition and generally survive the criteria of WP:NAMING.— Noetic Sage 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi - looking at the page history the level of vandalism, while annoying, is not such that page protection or semi-protection is justified in my view. Nothing wrong with escalating the matter to AWNB but you might like to try Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (abbreviation WP:RFP ) as an alternate and more specific escalation point with perhaps a more consistent approach to page protection. Regards-- Golden Wattle talk 06:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Twenty Years, I just wanted to ask you why you have changed your mind about the murder paragraph in the St Mark's article? If you read the discussion page you will find that you actually suggested using the paragraph which included the sentence about the location the body was found. Also, that paragraph had been in the the article since July up until this week when Yeti Hunter removed the sentence.
I think it's bad form to condemn me for editing the paragraph and then when you find out that it was actually Yeti Hunter who edited the paragraph, you support the change.
I thought you and me had a good working relationship on the St Mark's article. I've always thought you've been fair even if you've disagreed with my views but now I feel that I can't trust you as a third party anymore. I hope you can clear this up for me. Cheers. Username nought 10:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Twenty Years, I'm not sure what to do about the current issues with the murder and harrassment paragraphs. Last time I was willing to compromise for the sake of consensus but I'm not willing to further compromise my view and I think I'm wasting my time trying to convince editors to leave the paragraphs at their current revisions. So basically I don't think we're going to reach a consensus too soon. What are our options? Will this have to go to request for comment? Cheers. Username nought 13:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your comment on my talk page about the unlikeliness of this going to RFC but considering my stance to not compromise any further, what are the next steps? Cheers. Username nought 00:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Twenty, with the removal of the "Controversy" section in the Xavier College Melbourne article, do you mind if I remove the section? It's been spoken about on the talk page though I see that you have reverted the article several times. Feel free to leave a comment either on my talk page (which is currently blank) or the Xavier article talk page letting me know what you feel about it. senex 10:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The discussion you participated in continues at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics. The Transhumanist 04:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[1]. Not so. Admins should consider past history when determining block duration. WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks explicitly says this. — Moondyne 14:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
|
My RFA | |
Hello Twenty Years! Thanks a lot for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. Your support in particular was really valuable because it came right on the tails of a strong oppose, and your confidence in me really bolstered my spirits. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified, and please feel free to call on me if you ever need any help or opinions! Glass Cobra 02:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC) |
Hi there, this is a note on TOC relating to your recent edit at Sydney Law School and generally on other education-related pages.
The featured article criterion on TOC length is that it should be "substantial but not overwhelming": see WP:WIAFA.
While this is a subjective judgment in any particular case, a TOC of 13 lines (as was at Sydney Law School) is not overwhelming - an example of featured articles with 13 lines of TOC is Buckingham Palace. Keeping the TOC under control does not mean eliminating all subsections. Until and unless the article has so many subsections as to make the TOC "overwhelming" -- e.g. if the article develops in future to have 20 or 25 lines in the TOC -- please do not eliminate subsections simply for the sake of doing so. They serve a useful purpose for navigation.
Happy editing, -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The importance parameter already appears to be active for the Education WikiProject. There's no real how-to guide available but to use the parameter as it's currently implemented try the following...
Thanks for that :) Yep, seems to be okay. (Well, until the next round of random bot deletions, anyway...) Orderinchaos 09:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Twenty Years, you may be interested to know that the featured article nom for Victoria Cross for Australia has been restarted. Your comments would be welcome on the FAC when you get the chance. Thanks. Woodym555 14:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to re-review your vote for KevinRuddZoom2.jpg as I have cropped the image and re-uploaded to commons (please refresh and/or wait if no new photo is seen). Thanks. Timeshift 17:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Dearest Twenty Years,
Thank you for your participation in
my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to
The_undertow and
Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.
I think the rewrite is a good approach. Regarding your mention of notabilitiy, to me that link proves my point, A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. A couple of newspaper articles 16 years ago seems like a short burst, dont you think? Anyway, the rewrite of the murder is good, lets go with that at least. -- Echcua 22:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
On
Remembrance Day (or Armistice Day - Veterans Day in the US) we remember those soldiers who sacrificed their lives so their countries could live in freedom. We use poppies to remember the blood shed by soldiers in
Flanders Fields, a major European battleground. The poem
In Flanders Fields was written during
World War I but Remembrance Day commemorates all lives lost to war, especially after the first of the World Wars. The observance is not to glorify war but to remember those who suffered. Very few people remained untouched by the effects of World War I.
Memorial services held today often include the
Ode of Remembrance. The ode finishes with these words:
We will remember them.
A
uroranorth
04:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey man, have you ever been considered being an admin? You've got a very impressive edit count, spread nicely over the spaces, and your work with the Education in Australia WikiProject is really good. I'd be happy to nominate you if you like. :) Think about it, okay? Glass Cobra 15:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking back I can see I was out of line, thanks for picking that up. -- Echcua 11:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You'll see that it took a few days, but do you now see the relevant articles in the Education in Australia assessment categories? -- Longhair\ talk 19:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
My only experience with the RfC process was the one brought by Nought over the issue of the college roll; I was following the procedure that was taken back then. Sorry if this is considered inappropriate, I was not sure whether to add previous comments or not, and I believed those four points to be representative of the arguments put forward so far, ie, Nought says it's notable, I say it's not, you say it's somewhat notable but doesn't warrant undue weight. I think the way you have edited my original posting is quite appropriate, and thankyou for your comments. -- Yeti Hunter 09:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I've done some templates for the project.
Many more to come (list to be populated). Tell me what you think. I'll add them as necessary. A uroranorth 12:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. — Moondyne 13:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
We would be most grateful if you could respond re the missing importance tags on some of the school articles which you have assessed. See the last thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Assessment I think you are trying to do them in too much of a hurry. It's much easier if both assessments are done at the same time. Dahliarose 23:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Twenty Years! Im glad it finally got there..was getting a bit frustrating. Now I have to try and get it to FA haha.
Thanks for pointing out the infobox merger proposal..rediculous idea!
Template:Infobox School is hideous and may as well just take the place of the article. Anyhoo, thanks again!
Loopla
04:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
RE your comments re the extras in the edu cat I'm not round much for a while - but your points are well taken - cheers - sats Satu Suro 05:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You recently gave a number of pieces of useful advise in the above peer review. I have since replied to your comments and enacted some of your suggestions. Some further feedback would be welcome. Thanks a bunch. SorryGuy 04:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Twenty Years, in your hurry to rid us of articles on 50m2 Besa-block buildings with 5 students you may have missed that this one is on the Register of the National Estate with a good writeup and a bibliography of other works about the school. Would you reconsider your position ? - Peripitus (Talk) 09:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I don't know where to start... AfD or MfD? LOL. I should try to stay out of trouble. Auroranorth ( sign) 10:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Assuming that by " faculties" you mean a division of a university, according to our proposed article guidelines they are not notable unless important, unique, or remarkable in some way. Although the guidelines are just proposed, check out the relevant information. I would argue that they are not notable unless they have national recognition and generally survive the criteria of WP:NAMING.— Noetic Sage 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi - looking at the page history the level of vandalism, while annoying, is not such that page protection or semi-protection is justified in my view. Nothing wrong with escalating the matter to AWNB but you might like to try Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (abbreviation WP:RFP ) as an alternate and more specific escalation point with perhaps a more consistent approach to page protection. Regards-- Golden Wattle talk 06:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Twenty Years, I just wanted to ask you why you have changed your mind about the murder paragraph in the St Mark's article? If you read the discussion page you will find that you actually suggested using the paragraph which included the sentence about the location the body was found. Also, that paragraph had been in the the article since July up until this week when Yeti Hunter removed the sentence.
I think it's bad form to condemn me for editing the paragraph and then when you find out that it was actually Yeti Hunter who edited the paragraph, you support the change.
I thought you and me had a good working relationship on the St Mark's article. I've always thought you've been fair even if you've disagreed with my views but now I feel that I can't trust you as a third party anymore. I hope you can clear this up for me. Cheers. Username nought 10:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Twenty Years, I'm not sure what to do about the current issues with the murder and harrassment paragraphs. Last time I was willing to compromise for the sake of consensus but I'm not willing to further compromise my view and I think I'm wasting my time trying to convince editors to leave the paragraphs at their current revisions. So basically I don't think we're going to reach a consensus too soon. What are our options? Will this have to go to request for comment? Cheers. Username nought 13:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your comment on my talk page about the unlikeliness of this going to RFC but considering my stance to not compromise any further, what are the next steps? Cheers. Username nought 00:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Twenty, with the removal of the "Controversy" section in the Xavier College Melbourne article, do you mind if I remove the section? It's been spoken about on the talk page though I see that you have reverted the article several times. Feel free to leave a comment either on my talk page (which is currently blank) or the Xavier article talk page letting me know what you feel about it. senex 10:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The discussion you participated in continues at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basic geography topics. The Transhumanist 04:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[1]. Not so. Admins should consider past history when determining block duration. WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks explicitly says this. — Moondyne 14:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
|
My RFA | |
Hello Twenty Years! Thanks a lot for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. Your support in particular was really valuable because it came right on the tails of a strong oppose, and your confidence in me really bolstered my spirits. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified, and please feel free to call on me if you ever need any help or opinions! Glass Cobra 02:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC) |
Hi there, this is a note on TOC relating to your recent edit at Sydney Law School and generally on other education-related pages.
The featured article criterion on TOC length is that it should be "substantial but not overwhelming": see WP:WIAFA.
While this is a subjective judgment in any particular case, a TOC of 13 lines (as was at Sydney Law School) is not overwhelming - an example of featured articles with 13 lines of TOC is Buckingham Palace. Keeping the TOC under control does not mean eliminating all subsections. Until and unless the article has so many subsections as to make the TOC "overwhelming" -- e.g. if the article develops in future to have 20 or 25 lines in the TOC -- please do not eliminate subsections simply for the sake of doing so. They serve a useful purpose for navigation.
Happy editing, -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The importance parameter already appears to be active for the Education WikiProject. There's no real how-to guide available but to use the parameter as it's currently implemented try the following...
Thanks for that :) Yep, seems to be okay. (Well, until the next round of random bot deletions, anyway...) Orderinchaos 09:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Twenty Years, you may be interested to know that the featured article nom for Victoria Cross for Australia has been restarted. Your comments would be welcome on the FAC when you get the chance. Thanks. Woodym555 14:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to re-review your vote for KevinRuddZoom2.jpg as I have cropped the image and re-uploaded to commons (please refresh and/or wait if no new photo is seen). Thanks. Timeshift 17:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Dearest Twenty Years,
Thank you for your participation in
my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to
The_undertow and
Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.
I think the rewrite is a good approach. Regarding your mention of notabilitiy, to me that link proves my point, A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. A couple of newspaper articles 16 years ago seems like a short burst, dont you think? Anyway, the rewrite of the murder is good, lets go with that at least. -- Echcua 22:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
On
Remembrance Day (or Armistice Day - Veterans Day in the US) we remember those soldiers who sacrificed their lives so their countries could live in freedom. We use poppies to remember the blood shed by soldiers in
Flanders Fields, a major European battleground. The poem
In Flanders Fields was written during
World War I but Remembrance Day commemorates all lives lost to war, especially after the first of the World Wars. The observance is not to glorify war but to remember those who suffered. Very few people remained untouched by the effects of World War I.
Memorial services held today often include the
Ode of Remembrance. The ode finishes with these words:
We will remember them.
A
uroranorth
04:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey man, have you ever been considered being an admin? You've got a very impressive edit count, spread nicely over the spaces, and your work with the Education in Australia WikiProject is really good. I'd be happy to nominate you if you like. :) Think about it, okay? Glass Cobra 15:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking back I can see I was out of line, thanks for picking that up. -- Echcua 11:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You'll see that it took a few days, but do you now see the relevant articles in the Education in Australia assessment categories? -- Longhair\ talk 19:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
My only experience with the RfC process was the one brought by Nought over the issue of the college roll; I was following the procedure that was taken back then. Sorry if this is considered inappropriate, I was not sure whether to add previous comments or not, and I believed those four points to be representative of the arguments put forward so far, ie, Nought says it's notable, I say it's not, you say it's somewhat notable but doesn't warrant undue weight. I think the way you have edited my original posting is quite appropriate, and thankyou for your comments. -- Yeti Hunter 09:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I've done some templates for the project.
Many more to come (list to be populated). Tell me what you think. I'll add them as necessary. A uroranorth 12:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. — Moondyne 13:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
We would be most grateful if you could respond re the missing importance tags on some of the school articles which you have assessed. See the last thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Assessment I think you are trying to do them in too much of a hurry. It's much easier if both assessments are done at the same time. Dahliarose 23:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Twenty Years! Im glad it finally got there..was getting a bit frustrating. Now I have to try and get it to FA haha.
Thanks for pointing out the infobox merger proposal..rediculous idea!
Template:Infobox School is hideous and may as well just take the place of the article. Anyhoo, thanks again!
Loopla
04:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
RE your comments re the extras in the edu cat I'm not round much for a while - but your points are well taken - cheers - sats Satu Suro 05:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)