Worm That Turned (talk | contribs) →Concordia College, Adelaide: quick note |
VanishedUser kfljdfjsg33k (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
:::As to new High School pages. Hehehe, well yes, there are... Unfortunately I have [[WP:COI|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. -''<font face="Tahoma">[[User:Danjel|danjel]]</font>'' ([[User_talk:Danjel|talk to me]]) 13:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC) |
:::As to new High School pages. Hehehe, well yes, there are... Unfortunately I have [[WP:COI|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. -''<font face="Tahoma">[[User:Danjel|danjel]]</font>'' ([[User_talk: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 [[WP:REMOVED|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 [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] would help? [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;"><font color="black">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]] 14:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC) |
Hi Danjel. I see you've been restoring templates on [[user:Pdfpdf]]'s page, which is [[WP:REMOVED|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 [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] would help? [[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;"><font color="black">'''''Worm'''''</font></span>]] 14:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
:G'day Worm. Each warning was in regards to a separate [[WP:NPA]] issue. |
|||
:*Warning 1 [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdfpdf&oldid=409147597#January%202011]] (NPA2) was given for [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concordia_College,_Adelaide&diff=409145329&oldid=409145247]] |
|||
:*Warning 2 [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdfpdf&direction=next&oldid=409147851#January%202011]] (NPA3) was given for [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concordia_College,_Adelaide&curid=7118748&diff=409147734&oldid=409146613]] |
|||
:*Warning 3 [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdfpdf&direction=next&oldid=409148341#January%202011]] (3RR & NPA4) was given for his reversion here [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Concordia_College,_Adelaide&diff=409152753&oldid=409144443]] against the consensus on the talk page at [[Talk:Concordia College, Adelaide#Student Leaders]] and the utterly irrelevant personal attack he inserted into his edit summary for the same revert. |
|||
:*Warning 4 [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pdfpdf&direction=next&oldid=409157735]] was in regards to his refactoring of the comment I made objecting to his personal attacks that he removed at [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concordia_College,_Adelaide&diff=409148945&oldid=409148558]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Concordia_College,_Adelaide&diff=409149872&oldid=409149317]] |
|||
: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 [[WP:BAIT|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. -''<font face="Tahoma">[[User:Danjel|danjel]]</font>'' ([[User_talk:Danjel|talk to me]]) 15:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:08, 21 January 2011
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)
- 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)
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#Template:Infobox_Australia_school_private and Template_talk:Infobox_Australia_school_private#Fees. 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#N. 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
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[[1]]
- 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".
Pdfpdf (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Note
I have reported you at WP:AN3 for violating the three-revert rule. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 16:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please see my request here that you
strike outyour 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. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 17:27, 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:
- Refactor by collapsing the discussion as described above.
- Remove entirely the Talk:Xavier College#The Last Post as a comment about an editor and not the article
- 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.
- 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 [[2]] 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 [[3]]. 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 Wikipedia: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)
Orphaned non-free image File:MacRobertsonGHS.png
![⚠](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Ambox_warning_blue.svg/35px-Ambox_warning_blue.svg.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)
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. Each warning was in regards to a separate WP:NPA issue.
- Warning 1 [[4]] (NPA2) was given for [[5]]
- Warning 2 [[6]] (NPA3) was given for [[7]]
- Warning 3 [[8]] (3RR & NPA4) was given for his reversion here [[9]] against the consensus on the talk page at Talk:Concordia College, Adelaide#Student Leaders and the utterly irrelevant personal attack he inserted into his edit summary for the same revert.
- Warning 4 [[10]] was in regards to his refactoring of the comment I made objecting to his personal attacks that he removed at [[11]] and [[12]]
- 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)