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)
My mistake -- didn't realize you had changed usernames. Thanks, NawlinWiki 13:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
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, Gnan garra 13:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
Do you want it deleted? Hesperian 23:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Yechiel Man 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
For using a sockpuppet to evade your block, your block has been extended to six months. Hesperian 07:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
For using a sockpuppet to evade your block, your block has been extended to one year. Hesperian 12:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
For WA Admins use: Please leave a support or oppose notice under any proposal that you feel deserves a wiki article;
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)
...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)
I have no problems with that. Go ahead. — Moondyne 10:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
Also, for future reference, do i have permission to start talk pages or not? Thanks Twenty Years 11:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Satu Suro 09:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You can add |class=Cat, as in {{WP Australia|WA=yes|class=Cat}} — Moondyne 11:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. Satu Suro 15:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
(after more edit conflicts than...)
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 Satu Suro 15:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
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) |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If he was at hale - worth showing where you got that from somewhere somehow - I know he taught there and guildford - Satu Suro 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? Satu Suro 05:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Fair enough - thanks for taking time to explain - Satu Suro 05:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
My mistake -- didn't realize you had changed usernames. Thanks, NawlinWiki 13:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
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, Gnan garra 13:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
Do you want it deleted? Hesperian 23:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Yechiel Man 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
For using a sockpuppet to evade your block, your block has been extended to six months. Hesperian 07:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
For using a sockpuppet to evade your block, your block has been extended to one year. Hesperian 12:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
For WA Admins use: Please leave a support or oppose notice under any proposal that you feel deserves a wiki article;
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)
...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)
I have no problems with that. Go ahead. — Moondyne 10:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
Also, for future reference, do i have permission to start talk pages or not? Thanks Twenty Years 11:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 Satu Suro 09:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You can add |class=Cat, as in {{WP Australia|WA=yes|class=Cat}} — Moondyne 11:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. Satu Suro 15:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
(after more edit conflicts than...)
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 Satu Suro 15:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
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) |
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
If he was at hale - worth showing where you got that from somewhere somehow - I know he taught there and guildford - Satu Suro 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? Satu Suro 05:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Fair enough - thanks for taking time to explain - Satu Suro 05:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)