User talk:Just Chilling/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

Archive 1 - up to 17 May 2007

Archives

Archive 2 - up to 02 October 2007

Archives

Archive 3 - up to 12 January 2008

Archives

Archive 5 - up to 06 April 2010

Archives

Archive 6 - up to 13 January 2012

Archives

Archive 7 - up to 21 June 2014

Archives

Archive 8 - up to 17 September 2014

... on the Mansehra school, and thanks for working on it. Google gave me a warning not to click onto the Dawn.com Web site, although I forget the language. Did you get that warning? (I stayed away from it, but I'm glad you've g

HI

why did you delete the article about 'Father Michael Holman SR'

thanks

what is your problem with the log home link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.145.55 (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:EL as adding nothing substantial the article - it is primarily a directory of companies. TerriersFan (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD Rescue Barnstar Well done on a good rescue, filling in content and sourcing for Papua New Guinea national football team results during its AfD. Thanks for your hard work. Pastordavid (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no, I can't find anything in Portuguese linking Moita Flores to the McCanns - Rothorpe (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you had protected the article (Can't edit it). Since this is an ongoing news story and more new things are happening in this case,may I ask that you unprotect it so that we may add new events,etc? User:Guy43821 (talk)19/1/2008 —Preceding comment was added at 09:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view short-term protection is necessary but if you would like another view please take it to WP:RFPP. TerriersFan (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TerriersFan. Please be notified of the discussion here. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Signature cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, looks like we both had the same good idea at the same time :-) I won't edit it further tonight to avoid an edit clash. TerriersFan (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I'm done for the evening. You can take your hack at the article. The content available only makes it all the more baffling that the article was salted, let alone deleted. Alansohn (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thx; great work. Looks like the content was removed rather than sourced which then allowed deletion on the basis of absence of content :-(

Harry was a white dog with black spots (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contributions to the Hidden Valley High School page. Finchbook01 (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Phil[reply]

Hello. Regarding the Hidden Valley High School, I do not live in the area presently, but will try to obtain the info. The school is aptly named, being somewhat isolated from the local village. Also, the discussion on schools having or not having merit as Wiki sites was interesting.[1] I would hope a young person (budding English major) from the school would contribute. I am trying to be careful with additions, inclusions until I have caught on to more of the protocols for editing. Finchbook01 (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again TerriersFan, Today I received this reply from the history teacher at the Hidden Valley High School in Grants Pass. I still plan to physically travel to the area and nose around the county building department for verifiable info. Phil

Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 9:50 AM Subject: RE: History of HVHS "Phil, The school was completed (barely) by Fall 1977 for the first graduating class June 1978. That first year there were still Porta-Potties when the year began. I arrived in August 1978 as a coach and teacher and have been here every year. I am retiring this year with Ed Frankel and we are the last of the "old-timers" . Hopefully this info helps you. Mike Porzio" I shall keep at it. Finchbook01 (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and edits on the entry on Wilmington Montessori School. Whatever is required to keep the article within the guidelines of wikipedia is more than welcome. If there is anything else that I need to do, information to provide, etc., please let me know. I think I have already provided a good deal of information, and more than many sister schools in the area.

I am unsure of the motivations of the other editor that seems to have an obvious issue with the article (or the school, or Montessori) as stated on the dispute page and my talk page. He doesn't seem to have the same unemotional, rational discussion and or provide helpful guidance like other editors.

Again, thanks for the help. Daddy.twins (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my own comments above. Although I felt the editor's wording was brusque, I will assume good faith on the editor's part to ensure quality WP content.

Additionally, if you have a few minutes, I could use assistance in a couple of edits to further address WP:N. Both items relate to nationally recognized grants awarded annually to a relatively select group of recipients. The first was established and funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the second is a partnership between Toyota and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). Toyota funds and NSTA administers the program.

• First, if advisable, I'd like to highlight Community/Environment/Grant involvement in some way by moving the EPA Five Star Grant entry up. Here's additional info for that,
  
  In 2001, Wilmington Montessori School was one of 60 recipients in the country of a Five Star Grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for restoration work on the school property.
  
  Project Name: "Sense of Place" A School-Site Wildlife Habitat Project
  Five Star Grant: $10,000
  Grant to: Partnership for the Delaware Estuary
  Project Location: Wilmington, DE
  http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star/fy01grants.html#Wilmington
  
  The Five Star Restoration Program was established so the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can work with its partners for education through community-based wetlands restoration projects in watersheds across the U.S. The National Association of Counties, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the Wildlife Habitat Council have joined together with EPA for this effort. Funding for the program is provided by EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, and by the National Marine Fisheries Service's Community-based Restoration Program for selected projects in coastal areas.
  http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star/02factsheet.html
  

• Second, I'd like to add to the same section an entry for,
  
  In 2007, Wilmington Montessori School was one of 50 recipients in the country of a Toyota TAPESTRY Large Grant.
  
  Green Eggs & Sand: An Early Childhood Ecosystem EGGS-ploration
  Project Director: Angie W. Meadows
  Staff: Cathy Simon-Cord, Cynthia Craig
  
  2007 Toyota TAPESTRY Large Grant Awardees
  http://www.nsta.org/pd/tapestry/thisyears.htm
  Category: Integrating Literacy and Science

If I am asking too much, just let me know and I will muddle through the edits as best I can. Thank you for any time or effort you are able to expend on the article.

Daddy.twins (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is yes to both; it is better for information to be in the article rather than the footnotes. TerriersFan (talk) 03

21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

TF If you think the NYT article should stay, that's great. From the discussions during the last couple of days, I can see that experienced editors can disagree on muliple points. I was hoping to show willingness to accept changes to the article in order to remove items considered trivial by editors. I'll leave it to you guys to debate the finer points. Regards. --Daddy.twins (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TF, I was just wondering whether I could get an opinion from you about Show Me Love (t.A.T.u. song). I put it up for deletion, and I'm just wondering if perhaps I'm missing something that would lend it notability. Do you think it's notable? Thanks, Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 01:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the single is notable but the controversy is sufficiently well sourced to be mentioned at t.A.T.u.. TerriersFan (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The addition about Litherland gala was suggestedby my father who lived in Litherland for many years and the event was a famous event in the area. I attended on a number of occasions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gornystege (talk • contribs) 12:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. However, the way forward is to research and add a reliable source since personal experience is not sufficient. TerriersFan (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you contributed to the discussion about football notability criteria in November, so you will be delighted/appalled that I have restarted the discussion here. Please give your opinion so that we can move towards formalising the criteria. Regards, King of the NorthEast 15:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the Merge practice in the proposed guideline. I've revised my opinion on the AfD. --Regards. --Daddy.twins (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've really appreciated the good advice and direction. I'm glad that I was fortunate to stumble and fumble my way into a few good editors to help during this first week in wikipedia editing. I look forward to staying as active as real life allows and hope that I can contribute to a couple different efforts starting with WP:SCL. Thanks again, TF. --Daddy.twins (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry; as you get into Wikipedia you'll soon find that real life takes a back seat :=) TerriersFan (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Just what I need ... another obsession! I spent many bleary-eyed nights at my keyboard during the first year of Yahoo! Answers (not so much now). Maybe I should quit before I get behind. Not likely now. :-) --Daddy.twins (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on the above. It was obvious to me when I first stumbled across the article that the school was notable and I began the process of improving the page. You have greatly improved upon my small revisions. Thanks once again. Paste (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to be bold on this edit, but since I'm close to a Montessori school, I have instead tagged a couple questionable items with ^{[neutrality is disputed]} and ^{[citation needed]}. If you get a moment, I'd appreciate a different set of eyes reviewing. Regards. --Daddy.twins (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me that schools aren't covered by CSD, though I strongly disagree and I believe that CSD schould be expanded. Some people are getting really rediculous in declining SD candidates when it is obvious that they will be deleted. I did in fact search for a possible redirect, but none could be found with WP's search. Also, I kindly refuse to notify the creator as we have a very useful bot who does that for us, User:BJBot. Reywas92^Talk 02:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, 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/Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (2nd nomination) 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. BJBot (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Dapdap high school, 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/Dapdap high school 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. BJBot (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Blenheim.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. TerriersFan (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Celsius 7-7.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. TerriersFan (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the notability tag without first discussing the change on the article's talk page. Dimension31 (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have its you who hasn't discussed it. TerriersFan (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not slander my good name. I have made no damaging edits -- ever. Dimension31 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed references. If you don't rate the references then AfD the article but do not remove the references. TerriersFan (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed references that cited the subject's own website. Do not make it sound like I went around randomly deleting valid references. Dimension31 (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internal references are fine for internal matters. TerriersFan (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Wikipedia guideline for this? Dimension31 (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should have been able to find the guidelines for this by now. Keylock191 (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC) keylock191[reply]

Do not misrepresent posts on my talk page. Dimension31 (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or open up yours so I can email you. Just wanted to notify you of something (I think you'll be reading it soon enough if you haven't already, but just want to inform you early). Noroton (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Noroton (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're still watching this article, but would you stop by the talk page to offer your opinion on a statenent about the school's addiction to Facebook that Dimension31 insists needs to be included? Thanks, Metros (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slightly rude comment made explaining the last edit; beer and internet sometimes don't mix!! CrackDragon (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :-) TerriersFan (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After much googling and as written, I would have to say NN. --Daddy.twins (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful. I'll leave the page but if it gets deletion attention it'll have to be redirected. TerriersFan (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have directed fairly sharp comments at your contributions at this AfD discussion. You may wish to reply. Jd2718 (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Stafford school shouldn't be named for Conway "

Stafford School Board, as in Stafford, VA
fredericksburg.com, as in Fredericksburg, VA

...d'oh! --Daddy.twins (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; easily done. There is also a Conway School in Boston, USA with which I was getting confused! TerriersFan (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think that one's coming along nicely. --Daddy.twins (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thx to your refs. BTW one of the chess refs seems broken? TerriersFan (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I just successfully retried all of them .. I think. Which one is giving you problems? --Daddy.twins (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one? TerriersFan (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ... by "chess refs", you meant "math refs" .. very tricky of you. I'll find the correct link. --19:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC) --Daddy.twins (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And ... that link ain't mine ... was there before I got to editing the page today. I'll still see if I can track it down, though --Daddy.twins (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry about that - I shouldn't edit and eat tea at the same time :-) TerriersFan (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eat tea? Sounds like you need to focus on _something_! :-) I've added the ref to the page. Cleanup as needed. I'm still trying to get the hang of different cite formats and preferences. --Daddy.twins (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've got it. Looks like it was misplaced in the article. It's an article about their Blue Ribbon status on the Washington State School Directors' Assoc site. Try http://www.wssda.org/wssda/webforms/en-us/news/2002/20020529_bluerib.asp --Daddy.twins (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for the tip about history boxes etc, im still quite new to all this so am always Greatful for help and advice.

I've now expanded the article on Abbey Middle School and feel now that the article has justification for permanent inclusion on Wikipedia. How do I go about challenging the decision to label the article for deletion? Bleaney (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I appreciate the work you have done. You might, BTW, want to examine the edits that I have made to see some of our editing conventions. However, it is not yet a keep; and believe me if I am not convinced it won't be kept (I have an established reputation for improving school pages so they can be kept). All is not lost since we can copy the content to Cauldwell under a new heading. The consensus on here is that secondary schools are generally kept but primary and middle schools need clearly established notability. WP:School provides good guidance. The existence of many other, poorer, articles doesn't affect anything; it simply means no-one has got round to putting them up for deletion/merge. If, having read the guidance you still want to proceed then you need to find content with secondary sources. Searching on the various names on Google news should always be the first point of call. For example, see here. The question of 'special measures' is skirted around at the moment and you need to incorporate the full story backed up by the sources. That, alone, is unlikely to be sufficient so you need to find other news stories. I'm always ready to help. TerriersFan (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well as you say the consensus is that secondary schools are generally kept. Firstly Abbey Middle school is currently designated as a secondary school or middle-deemed-secondary school which teaches in a secondary style format and is recognised as such by ODSTED. (This is true of all middle school in north Bedfordshire). Also, the school used to be a secondary modern school, so has a history of full secondary education provision. I feel also that the school is just as much Elstow's, as Cauldwell's (again reflected in its history and name) which means it cannot be easily defined to one locality. Bleaney (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The target for a merge can always be discussed and agreed. I understand the points that you make; however, I can only provide advice as I see it. The way forward is to add sourced material and I have given you a good pointer above. Otherwise, it won't be kept. TerriersFan (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im struggling to find info on how and why the school got out of special measures, any tips??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleaney (talk • contribs) 00:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two ways, firstly you need to work through the references here, here, and all past Ofsted reports. Secondly, if you are local, visit the school and the education offices and see what publically available documentation they can produce (sources do not need to be web based). Also consider a visit to the local paper and/or library to search back issues. BTW it helps if you use multiple ':' to indent your comments so it can be seen which comments replies to which one. TerriersFan (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you wouldn't want to ban an implemented IP forever. I'm just remarking that anyone sharing that IP is not really going to have a chance to edit anyway, and really hasn't since 2006 and won't for as long as that user is at that IP.--Sparkygravity (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you nominated this article for deletion, but then removed the tag. Can you please explain?Hellno2 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains some useful material that is sourced. However, it also contains a number of contentious statements that are unsourced and fail WP:V and WP:NPOV. I am presently thinking through the best way of dealing with the matter to preserve the sourced content whilst eliminating those parts that fail policy. TerriersFan (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not place the appropriate tags (for example {{cn}} or {{npov}}) wherever needed?Hellno2 (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was the most ridiculous postcard I could find. I just couldn't let the day pass unremarked.
Noroton (talk) 03:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm watching it - Rothorpe (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have carried out a revert to correct the name of the principal which I have checked here. However, I am uncertain about the addition of:

"Boys Soccer team (Varsity & JV, Union County Champions 2005)".

Please would you check it and reinsert it if it is correct? TerriersFan (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for stepping up in my neck of the woods. I was unable to find a source for the county championships. I have no objection to leaving the claim out in its entirety. I added a source for another notable, and the article looks pretty good compared to most schools. Thanks again for your input. Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are podcasts such as Benson and the Little Giant notable? -WarthogDemon 05:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They can be but they would require the necessary reliable secondary sources to meet WP:N. I haven't researched this one but at the moment the sources are, in my view, insufficient. In an AfD the page's fate would depend on whether additional sources can be found. TerriersFan (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, could you help me do that????????--I am sooooo cool! 23:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, which URL did you get it from, please? TerriersFan (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

URL???????????--I am sooooo cool! 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click URL - the address of the website where you found it. TerriersFan (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, then here's the URL/.htm Madeliene McCann

Sorry, that URL is broken .... TerriersFan (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, sometimes it works with me, I dont know what's going on

(I am sooooo cool! 20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the heads-up! I do feel that it should have been kept but the merge done is an acceptable compromise. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now merged the content into Education in Ahmedabad; it's not much use debating about those 2 lines of content. But generally, if you want an article to be merged, just be bold and merge it. There's no need for this kind of procedural ping-pong.

By the way, there are quite a number of school articles tagged with notability questions, which might eventually end up in the PROD process. If you're interested, I can provide you with a list. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view, and the point that I was making, is that if you come across a non-notable school article then you should go ahead and merge or redirect it, rather than Prod it which means someone else has to deal with it. The accepted approach is that North American schools are merged/redirected to the school district and schools elsewhere to the lowest level locality. TerriersFan (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TerriersFan, thanks for your note regarding this edit. While the MOS seems to indicate that only the birth date should appear in parentheses, the result of this edit is now a clumsy short sentence which is a little out of place. I don't see any reason why it should be restored to the previous version, but I guess one point is that the article is not strictly speaking a biography, so the biographical style manual need not necessarily apply! That may not be the answer you're looking for, but that's my take on it! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You declined a CSD#A7 for St. Joseph High School (İstanbul), with the comment "Declined speedy - schools are explicitly excluded from A7". I would have nominated it as an AfD, except the logs for the page show it has previously been twice speedily deleted as CSD#A7. So, is A7 valid for schools or isn't it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schools are explicitly excluded from A7 - see the text at WP:CSD, section A7. They are not excluded from A1, for example, so 1 liners can still be deleted. The accepted stance is that high schools are generally notable, and except for odd ones like small private schools and unsourceable ones from say, the Philippines are invariably kept at AfD. Elementary schools are generally not notable and, unless there is a clear claim to notability are normally merged to the school district (North America) or the lowest level of the locality (elsewhere). TerriersFan (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have done some work on this article. I did not see anything that would support the notability of the school per the guidelines or the purposed guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (schools). I thought I would drop you a note instead of tagging it. Any thoughts? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the heads up. I have had a look around for sources but there isn't quite enough to defend a separate page. Consequently, I would not resist a bold merge/redirect to Redlands Unified School District per the guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Cheers Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't see that information. Well, I tried.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you did well, thanks. TerriersFan (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we edit/delete conflicted on this article. I was going to deny the G7 speedy because other people have edited it, and therefore G7 doesn't apply. But something odd happened, and I recreated the article with the internal error text. What should be done? seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can try to fix it but my view is that G7 applies. Other editors have made edits but none are 'substantial edits '. I would add, and as you may be aware I have a reputation for saving all schools pages that are salvageable, that IMHO deletion is the best solution. Essentially, the page was OR, full of claims, some of which I couldn't source and some of which were patently false. This will allow a sensible recreation if someone is so minded. TerriersFan (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe G7 applies, then I'll certainly defer to you. I was just letting you know. I'll just delete the page as an error. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that is the best. Basically one editor tried to clean it up and another restored the original content so the result was as if no edits had been made. Pragmatism rules, I think ... TerriersFan (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I think I've done as much as I'm inclined to do to source this article. At this point, I think the content is reasonably sourced, so that the WP:V concerns are assuaged. That being said, I'm less satisfied that notability is established. There may be a couple more scientific sources that may have more info, but they are by subscription only. Also, I saw that kush was a cover story for High Times magazine, though I don't have access to that either. All in all, my inclination is that it's probably just notable enough, though I won't say the argument is overwhelming. I may also be a little biased now that I've spent some time working on the article. So, I won't object if you think it ought to go back to AfD, though I will probably support keeping it - unless you have an argument to talk me out of it.--Kubigula (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that you have done very well with slender material. I am not one for pushing marginal notability to AfD; life is way too short. I agree that WP:V has been met so as far as I'm concerned it's now good enough to stay. TerriersFan (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely milked all I could out of a few bits in reliable sources. I guess we'll see where it goes from here.--Kubigula (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the question I originally asked, i've deleted the old picture now.--XCheese360 (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has been agreed with several other members who work on African articles that in order to set up a strong foundation to increase further coverage of settlments in Africa to avoid confusion on whether a village is a toown or a town a city it is best to have all place sin one category for a comprehensive filing system. The main towns and cities are in the lists anyway. Please trust me -see my extreme amount of work on other places in Africa and you'll relaise I have it all in order.

The next task will be to add infoboxes and locator maps to all cities and towns in Morocco and try to get the most comprehensive set and tidiest set of African geo articles as possible ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it creates some consistency, categorically and the infrastructural change also prepares for the several hundred new articles that will be generated on places in Africa over the coming months. I am also going through every country and ensuring that they all have an infobox and locator map to improve article quality. I'll look at getting a more attractive locator map for Morocco too ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E.g Karia Ba Mohamed now has an infobo and is tagged in the talk page ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, nice work, thanks for the explanation. TerriersFan (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rescue! Ning-ning (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Beyton per established precedent. Mergers do not require an AfD and this need not have come here. TerriersFan (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't disagree with Merge/redirect to Beyton as suggested by TerriersFan but to imply that I am wasting time by bringing this to AfD is harsh. Wikipedia even has a category 'Middle schools in England' so by no means are all redirected or merged! Paste (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TerriersFan, I kindly ask you to recuse yourself from closing further CSDs in the Judaism Project. I base this on your voting in such AfDs[2]. As I do not mean this personally and I completely assume your good faith. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the A7 template because it was placed contrary to policy. I have no interest in the Judaism Project but certainly will not be inhibited about actioning future CSDs that happen to be in the project. If you are unhappy about any future CSD actions then firstly raise the point here and if we can't reach agreement then take it to WP:DRV. TerriersFan (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. It is duly noted. Bstone (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did NOT vandalise the article, but simply removed all the POV data. There is no consensus over what should be or should not be in the article, in fact the talk page is EMPTY (except for my comment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.195.250.2 (talk • contribs)

If you are concerned about POV then place an appropriate tag. Further page blanking will be regraded as vandalism. TerriersFan (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than try to research which stage of the article you complained of, I refer you to a recent entry in Category:Smoking cannabis-- Discussion page, concerning the need to balance the coverage of cannabis smoking, which had been slanted toward hot-burning overdose consumption methods, imitative of those used with addictive tobacco, by introducing information on miniature pipes which make it possible for a user to draw air slowly, achieve low temperature burning, and a higher yield of THC (or nicotine, as this approach offers benefits for tobacco users also). A World Health Organization press conference of February 7, 2008 will be cited in the article, with indications why a device often thought of as intended for cannabis use can save millions of lives if adopted by tobacco users.

A later effort to initiate a Category titled "One-hitter(smoking reduction utensil", which would include the articles on "One-hitter", "Midwakh," "Kiseru, and other means of non-overdose smoking, was objected to by a different editor. I have discussed that in part on User talk:Jaysweet.

As to whether some issues, such as the above, justify overriding some Wikipedia traditions, check out an article titled Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay it's been said many times that the Mccanns will not return as official suspects, in fact for months. Link it if you have a problem with my source, rather than removing it when you know damn well it is the reality of things. Also a trip to Brussels to meet MEPs one day after the Portugese police request they come back? Get beat with your edit, it was lame and you know it. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haudcivitas (talk • contribs) 01:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the request to return is already in the article. Next, the sources say "But he made it clear the couple were still undecided on whether to return to the resort." so your addition is inaccurate. The McCanns feelings are not reliably sourced - being attributed to an unnamed friend - "A friend of the couple said: "Kate is upset. There's been no sense of concern for her feelings or the anguish it will cause her.". The Brussels trip is for discussion - I agree there are arguments both ways. TerriersFan (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop undoing other people's additions. You do not have monopoly on truth or perspective. If you do not move to personally include that the Mccanns chose a high profile MEP mission one day after the Portugese Police requested their presence and two days after it was revealed that the daughter asked the night before her dissapearance "Why didn't you.." (etc, look at it now) then I will do so. You are no doubt someone who paid these people and have a vested interest of some nature. Do not threaten me again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haudcivitas (talk • contribs) 00:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even the size of a parish (freguesia) & appears to consist entirely of holiday homes. It's in the parish of Mexilhoeira Grande, Portimão: [3] [4] Rothorpe (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice research, thank you. TerriersFan (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure. And now Murat is suing all round, according to the Guardian. Rothorpe (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could I see the original for myself, please so that I know this is the case? Thank you. GreenJoe 16:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. GreenJoe 17:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have just deleted an article which took me a long time to write. Please can you give me a chance to see the text written on the Micheal Appleby article so it doesn't go to waste and i can use it somewhere else e.g Microsoft powerpoint (not Wikipedia). Thank You. Shakaib (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked again at the content I have decided that it breaches WP:BLP so it cannot exist on Wikipedia. TerriersFan (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You complete fool! you can't just do that! you could have warned me or saved it onto sandbox for me! anyway i now do know that writing about people, biographies... is not allowed on Wikipedia. But you can't just delete my article without warning me. It was just fun, and the person i was writing about actually asked me to make an article about them! so it wasn't offensive or anything like that! you have totally Disappointed me and indeed hurt me. Sorry for calling you a fool but you have no right to do that (delete without warning or not save on sandbox). It's not right! Administrators think they rule everything and think they can do what they like without warning. Doesn't mean you are an Administrator and you can do that! Administrators should have feelings too. What a waste of time; me writing that all up! you fool. And before you say to me "I did warn you"...... you clearly didn't. It just said "speedy deletion" when i saw my talk page after i wrote the article! Shakaib (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content was negative, unsourced material on an identifiable individual and, therefore, I don't believe that userfying it is appropriate. However, it can be userfied by any admin and others may hold a different view. If you wish to get a second opinion then you can take it to WP:DRV and request that an admin userfies it. TerriersFan (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I agree with what you are saying, and I sincireely apologize.

Thanks

Shakaib (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have reviewed the article in question, and I completely agree that this negative unsourced "article" about an identifiable individual is not appropriate for wikipedia, and also not appropriate for source-emailing or userfication. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I used the "+" at the top of Neil's page without reading it, and when it saved, I saw that you beat me to it. I think this will likely go to DRV. Cheers, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to move User:TerriersFan/College of Pharmacy (Pune) back into user space now - it's now a perfectly serviceable little stub. Neıl ☎ 08:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to apologize for being snippy in responding to you about the Home for Incurables disambiguation page. Even though I think your desire to delete that sort of thing is short-sighted, the simple fact that you asked if I had any plans for it before doing anything is miles beyond the degree of consideration most people show on Wikipedia, and I want to commend you for making an example of courtesy that far exceeded my own. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 17:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 25 is about the secret services, so is in the right place. 26 is about the search in general: 'Dozens of police officers have come from Lisbon to Lagos; and three British policemen are helping in the investigations'. So I don't think we need to move that either. Rothorpe (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'm happy to go along with your view. TerriersFan (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that we both posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College of Pharmacy (Pune). I wanted to know if you had more information than I have, because I was wavering in my decision and you seemed more sure of yourself. I want to counter systemic bias, of course, but in my comparison to other US universities I don't see most colleges getting their own pages -- just their universities. (My university, for example, has only one school with its own page; the other half-dozen or so are covered only in the main university article.)

So my questions are as follows:

1. Do you agree with my assessment (based on only a few articles in my case, but they seemed representative) that most colleges don't get their own pages, or did I just have an unusual sample?
2. Do you agree with my (heretofore tacit) assumption that the College of Pharmacy is just a part of its university?
3. Do you think that, granting the above, the College of Pharmacy would be one of these notable colleges (within its university) that deserves its own article, or is it a fairly typical college in the University of Pune that merits its own article only if most colleges (within universities) do?
4. Do you have a good idea on how to go about the AfD? Regardless of the outcome, most of the !votes seemed to be uninformed.

Respectfully yours, CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these helpful comments. My thoughts, in response to your questions, are:

1. Notability for individual colleges depends on the role the colleges play in their universities and this differs between countries. For example in the UK, the colleges in several universities are notable; for example Category:Colleges of the University of Cambridge and Category:Colleges of Durham University.
2. This College is not part of the University of Pune. It is managed by the Abhinav Education Society which has a chain of colleges. In addition to Pharmacy, there are, for example, colleges of Law, Engineering and Technology and Education. See here, here, and here. The Society is authorised by the University to award their degree but it is not part of the University.
3. Had it been that the College of Pharmacy was part of the University then there would have been insufficient material to justify a separate page.
4. I would be perfectly happy with a new page Abhinav Education Society which can cover all their constituent colleges.

HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and remove the list. That list is hurts the article with undue weight on non-encyclopedic info. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont know what to do here?

You could request CheckUser because I can assure you that I have nothing at all to do with these accounts. I am sorry if editing an article multiple times makes me a puppeteer. I have never 'radically' removed content from London Oratory School. Most have just been spelling, removing vandalism etc. I put the Schola article for deletion for what I thought were good reasons. I have been an editor for over a year now and I have never vandalised in any way at all and I thought that I was fairly reputable. You might have to move this because I have no idea where I'm supposed to put my reply to your incorrect accusations. WazzaMan (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments that I have copied to here. TerriersFan (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about blanking the pages. Won't do it again. There are so many conventions in Wikipedia it's not always easy to foresee the ramifications of the process. I am learning fast as I am being corrected kindly by everyone else, which I do appreciate. As for the idea of redirects, these are so trivial that redirects would be silly. They whole point about these pages for each streetcar stop is that it is not a point of entry for anyone's enquiry, so no one would try to go there looking for information about the street car line. I do appreciate re-directs and have created a few myself on both the English and the Portuguese sites. Cheers, and thanks again for the heads up.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I just couldn't get any more information on him, even though Brazilian football players are a major commodity.--Wloveral (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can your please explain what you mean with your statement that the references are essentially self-published? May be I miss something, but 21 of the 22 listed references do not come close to self-published sources. Andries (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Share_International#References. Andries (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you would mind taking a look at Duval County Public Schools, where I merged James Weldon Johnson Middle School. User:Unschool objects at Talk:Duval County Public Schools to the table I started for content to be added. I thought this would be a good way to allow expansion of school content in a district article till break-out articles are ready. User:Unschool worries it makes district article too cluttered. Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article North Brunswick High School was just speedy deleted. I'm not sure what was there, but the school had been a recent winner of the Intel Schools of Distinction‎, which would certainly be a start. If you could check out the content and userify into my user space, I would be willing to expand the article. Alansohn (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess there's room for expansion. I will take a look at other sources and create a meaningful stub. Alansohn (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TerriersFan, if you have a chance you should look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police invasion of UCT campus. It's a poorly-written article that seems to meet WP:V. The consensus thus far is to delete, but I think (regardless of the eventual fate of the article) that there needs to be more discussion. Your thoughts?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the work that you've done to the Bridlewood Community Elementary School article! --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed reference #5. The OCDSB website was revamped, and I've updated the reference so it points to the correct page. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am GREATLY offended by your edit summary that said "re-established pre-vandalised version" when I did NOT vandalise anything. I have half a mind to report this to WP:ANI. GreenJoe 00:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I said. I never said that you vandalised anything. I said "re-established pre-vandalised version". The content "The Nipissing University Student Union Council comprises mainly of two parts: the powerful executive council and the largely uninfluential student representatives. They function in much the same way the Galactic Senate and Chancellor Palpatine co-existed, with each having incredible regard for the other's concerns. Chancellor Palpatine was a jolly sith lord and he would never have done anything to jeopardize the establishment." is plainly vandalism and the editor who inserted it will be in the history. TerriersFan (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since GreenJoe opted not to notidy you, his thread is here 01:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I offer my apologies. I've had a long, crappy day and it's no excuse for my not assume good faith myself. GreenJoe 01:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list notable is just to the school. Let the Wikipedia administrators decide it rather than you delete it. These are not Notable to Wikipedia. There are many sites e.g Uttar Kannada has listed people who are notable locally. Thanks. 00:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Uttar Kannada needs cleaning up too! Bear in mind that I defended this page so please accept my advice. TerriersFan (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do an undo and after many attempts it did not work (it kept reverting back to the original page or wouldn't allow the page to be renamed which was quite frustrating). Ozdaren (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you've recreated the earlier page. Can you please restore the later edits as they added to the article. Ozdaren (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't appreciate the tone of your comments to me. I will leave this a polite address to you to please take your comments elsewhere and leave me alone. Ozdaren (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already restored all the edits. I am sorry that you are not happy with my 'tone' but if you re-read the comments you will see that they consist of polite requests intended both to help you and to save future work. TerriersFan (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said, it wasn't easy to close. The only people that wish to keep stated a weak keep, and the arguments for deletion were good, so not sure why you were shocked. I'm rather iffy on merging to locality, just on principle. If you want to do that, that's your business and I of course won't stop you if you do. I just closed it by consensus in the AfD, which was to delete. Wizardman 16:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD in which you participated last week, has been relisted for further consensus-- your preferred solution is a keep, not a merge-- but you summarized the !vote as "merge" , which would result in a forced merge, not a discussion of whether to merge. DGG (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've now fixed it. TerriersFan (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't not know that schools were exempt. Toytown Mafia (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and your comment here. I totally agree but is this message public enough -- there seem to be a ridiculous amount of schools at AfD lately from some of the same noms. It seems like 'I know the outcome but let's do this in case' it really does. Any suggestions? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- DiligentTerrier (and friends) 17:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Thanks for merging the theological school which someone wanted to delete. I appreciate your preserving the info as well as the article history. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why hmm...perhaps it could? Oh mysteries! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeluxNate (talk • contribs) 21:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you change double quotes (") into single quotes (').
Why? (Is it a MoS thing? Or a British thing? Or what?)
As far as I'm aware, Australians generally use double quotes, and only use single quotes when there is something quoted within the quote. Otherwise/generally, the (') character is used as an apostophe (or in hrs/mins/secs and degrees/mins/secs).
Quotation mark doesn't seem to say anything particularly useful on the matter.
I'll be interested to read your response. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. What does "fpr,mat" mean? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ermm... 'fpr,mat' was an extremely bad typo for 'format' borne out of carelessness :-(

In the UK, and as far as I can see in the US, double quotes (") are used for direct quotations and single quotes (') for emphasis; the direct opposite to your usage. With regard to MoS please see WP:PUNC which says "Quotations are enclosed within "double quotes"." HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for the delayed reply.) Thanks for your reply. Interesting. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: My and Australian useage is not the direct opposite of UK & US usage - I must have expressed myself poorly. Yes, it would seem all three (and me too) use double quotes for direct quotation. The difference is in the use of single quotes. (And I'm not sure if that's just my usage of them.)

Anyway, I now understand you were not doing a blanket change of all double quotes to single quotes. (Yet another example of coming to the wrong conclusion based on too little data!)

Cheers and Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been restored. --Tom (talk - email) 20:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this prompt action. TerriersFan (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. Sorry about the references; I am better at historical work then at using a computer. Thank you for the advice. --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you get a moment I wonder if you could take a look at this page please? We have an enthusiastic editor who has been adding many alumni to the article. However, though some have pages, several look non-notable. I have had an extensive tussle with him over some hype on which he was insisting but on which he now appears to have given up. Consequently, an objective view on these alumni would help. Thanks. TerriersFan (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take a look at the article. I always try to enforce sources at these articles for notables, but the exact standard to apply can be a question. Alansohn (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you deleted my Crustation article for lack of notability.

While I acknowledge it is a not very known band and my article was pretty weak (for example, the red links to the band members should be removed), the album has acquired cult status among trip-hop fans, and I think it should be relisted.

It is listed on the French and German Wikipedias [5] [6]. And here's the Amazon page of the album [7]. Notice how there are some reviews about the album, so it was certainly sold comercially. Also notice that the album is out of the stock and somebody is trying to sell it for $74.

Right now I don't have much free time, but if this doesn't yet meet WP:MUSIC or WP:N tell me and I'll try to find more realiable sources when I have time. Please answer on my talk page. Thanks! --xDCDx (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing my second keep to comment, I was confused about how to add a second statement so I just did was I did before. KB1LQC (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day TerriersFan. I noticed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools you have started a new section over a redirect? I think you meant your comment to go somewhere else. I was going to revert but thought it might be best for you to take a look at so you can put the message where you intended it to go. Cheers.--Sting Buzz Me... 23:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page previously redirected to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting, presumably because it was empty. I have undone the redirect to enable it to be used for its intended purpose; as the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools. If this is incorrect please explain why? TerriersFan (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No not incorrect now that I look at it. It just seemed odd that a new section was being placed over a redirect. I'd assumed it had been decided to redirect discussion to the Deletion sorting talk page? The talk page was on my watch list and on first glance looked like you'd made an error so I (wrongly) alerted you. Lucky I didn't revert it eh? ;-)--Sting Buzz Me... 02:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :-) TerriersFan (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of linking to another article; if you're writing on a page, and the topic you link to has not been created, should you link it anyways? I'm fairly new and was wondering if maybe you should not link it rather than leave the word as red. Thanks! DeluxNate (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are of the view that the topic to which you wish to link is notable, and is likely to get a page in the future, then the answer is yes. The advantage of linking is that when a page on the topic is created then it will be more easily found. It is important when creating the link to take care to ensure that the link name is the most likely formulation that will be used when the topic page is created. One alternative to consider, however, is to see whether the topic is already covered in another page. In such a case a redirect might be the better course of action. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. Did you originally upload the image on the right? It has got transferred and the 'source' field is now a bit mangled. It was used at Greater Manchester which is up at FAC, see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greater Manchester, but the lack of a decent 'source' led to its removal. If you could reconfirm, we can stick it back in. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is my photograph and I uploaded it - good innit :-) TerriersFan (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is publishing a book - details now on Guardian website - Rothorpe (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - I'll add it when published on Thursday. TerriersFan (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice the major revision header on the article and made a slight edit to the page... In the section "Criticism of the Parents" it stated: "Following criticism in the Portuguese media of the behaviour of the McCanns, on 21 July, the Crown Prosecution Service..." I simply added 2007 to the date ("on 21 July 2007, the Crown...") to remove any ambiguity... its 21 July just now, but the CPS didn't so anything today. Apologies if this causes any edit conflicts. Malbolge (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; thank you for this message. TerriersFan (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the refs as requested. 82.12.253.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rudy Herman Guede.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I see that your an active member in Project Schools. Is There Anyway that we could put a tag on the article to get some more people to edit and expand it. This page needs to get alot of views so that more students can use parks like these as you probably agree that we need to expand science in the elementary schools.Thanks! CelesJalee (talk) 08:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please Respond On My Talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CelesJalee (talk • contribs) 08:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm trying to start a collaborative effort to rid Wikipedia of some common typos and I was wondering if you would take a look at my page and see what you think of it(ways I could of wrote it better, etc). I'd really appreciate some feedback on what you think. Thanks! DxNate 10:40, 27 Nov 2024 User-Talk-Contribs

Some quick thoughts.

• On your user page I would amend 'non-admin powers' to 'non-admin tools' since even admins have tools not powers.
• On User:DeluxNate/TypoAdoption make all the headings fully lower case, except the initial letter per WP:Mos.
• On User:DeluxNate/TypoAdoption address the distinction between British and US spelling.
• Alert users to Firefox having both US and British dictionaries available as add-ons which are very useful for picking up typos. TerriersFan (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a timeline, sort of, of the disappearance itself, although the report is mainly structured around witness statements, 'fls.', 'folhas', 'sheets'. The title, 'Relatório final', translates as 'Final report'. I hope that answers your questions. Rothorpe (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you review my latest comment on this - you'll see why I brought it to AfD - I'd be interested in any feedback you have. Thanks. CultureDrone (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info - that broadly seems to be my interpretation of what WP:SCHOOL was aiming at. Just one point to clarify - when you say 'high/secondary' schools are inherently notable, what do you mean by secondary in this sense - is that in the '11 year olds and up' UK sense ? That would seem rather extreme as, imho, most high schools could have a claim to notability, the vast majority of those teaching ages 11-18(ish) probably wouldn't.... Are you implying that simply because sources can be found (i.e. passing WP:V), that assertaion of any notability is unnecessary ? CultureDrone (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary is generally considered to be schools that educate to age 16 (Fifth form in UK/Grade 9 in US). NB In the UK the majority of secondary schools now don't have sixth forms. Schools that educate only to lesser ages are middle schools and are usually nn. I have followed many hundreds of secondary school AfDs. The outcome is invariably that they are kept. My view is that with the 000s and 000s of nn primary school sub-stubs that need sorting out, and are largely non-controversial, why spend time on controversial high schools? In any case how does WP, which is chock full of popular culture crap, benefit from the deletion of public sector institutions? TerriersFan (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems out of keeping with other areas of WP. Basically, this is a guideline that implies that if your school teaches children up to the age of 11, it's probably not deserving of an article (except in a few, rare cases), but if you teach children over the age of 11 then it almost definately is, whether you're a well-known prep school or some 10 pupil shack in the middle of a US desert (a slight exaggeration perhaps, but basing the decision just on the ages of the children, rather than on the school itself seems rather arbritrary and out of keeping with other WP policies/guidelines). As for how does it benefit to delete public sector institutions, then tell me how it benefits WP to include articles that often tell me no more than the name of the school, its address, and a website...:-) CultureDrone (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus came from the view that high schools both have a community presence and an effect on the future lives of their students that elementary schools don't have. Adopting a common approach also aids consistency and saves everyone's time. I agree with you that directory-only entries are of little value but they are stubs and like all stubs are there not for their intrinsic value but to allow growth. The way with them, as with all stubs, is to expand them to something useful. TerriersFan (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the high schools that I was whining about ;-) Nor the primary (up to age 11'ish) - it's the 11-16yo(ish) age range. In your initial reply to me you said "High/secondary schools are kept ... Primary/middle schools are generally merged/redirected to the locality" - in your reply above, you said "Secondary is generally considered to be schools that educate to age 16" - so I took that as saying "up to age 11, nn (except in rare cases), over age 11 default notable", and it's that I can't understand - is there some grey area over the use of 'secondary' and 'middle' that I'm not getting to grips with ? CultureDrone (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally:

• Primary schools 5-11
• Middle schools anything 9-14
• Secondary schools 11-16 or 11-18.

HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm..not exactly :-) Based on what you said before, that means that middle school A which teaches 10-14 year olds isn't nn, but secondary school B which teaches 11-16 is nn. The only difference is that school B teaches 15 and 16 year olds. No wonder I try and steer clear of school articles ! :-) Thanks for your time CultureDrone (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no; primary/middle schools, as defined above are nn but secondary schools are notable. Teaching 15/16 year olds is what causes the difference. TerriersFan (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops - I used 'nn' there for 'normally notable', rather than 'not notable' - sorry for the confusion ! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

we dont recite unproven allegations sourced or not? well the article sources a newspaper saying " And one of the McCanns' two Portuguese lawyers, Carlos Pinto Abreu, told Lisbon radio station TSF that Mr Amaral's comments were "in very poor taste" and "unhelpful to the investigation".

"The British police have only been working on that which the McCann couple want them to and which is most convenient for them," he said.

"The have only investigated tips and information developed and worked on for the McCanns, forgetting that the couple are formal suspects in the death of their daughter Madeleine.".

This was denied by Mr Amaral, so the article sources unproven allegations.Also i believe that the article on his book is interesting regarding the whole story about madelaine.Erasing it is pure vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.215.29 (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, a couple days ago you contested against User:Avraham that elc International school is not a notable school. Officials from the school has contacted me about the article and that they would like it removed, otherwise as a student I might be well..sought after. Could you please remove it ASAP? Thanks, --Hanaichi 10:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please come back to the talk page of the Derrick Lonsdale article to discuss. I've spent the last year studying Lonsdale's work and corresponding with him. Doesn't that put me in a good position to expand on his biographical stub? I want to be helpful to Wikipedia readers. I don't have any POV issues here. I want to represent Lonsdale's life and work with neutrality. If you delete instead of editing, I'll stop writing and the article will evolve more slowly and without the benefit of my knowledge.shbrown (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I did have a stab this afternoon at merging then redirecting a whole load of these school articles (almost all junior highs as i recall). I think I got all of them, but the speed they were being added was too much at one point! I think i've explained sufficiently to the editors that they should add junior and elementary schools to the summary article, and i think they've got it now. I really didn't want to get sucked into this whole edit phase as it's pushed my watchlist over the 600 mark which is my cue to seriously prune it. I'm not now watching any of them. If you want me to monitor them again, please let me know and I'll pick them back up. :) --Ged UK (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you have done a fantastic job. Sadly, as you will see here, there are many elementary schools as well. Unfortunately they have been redirected to various locations which makes them hard to find :-( I see no reason for you to watch list the individual articles since I don't think that the redirects will be undone. TerriersFan (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pick those up tomorrow evening then (or maybe when I'm at work if i can find the time!). --Ged UK (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on the proposed deletion. I have added content and am working on adding content to other season pages like that one. Cheers Maple Leaf (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out the sources you referenced and the story is from another high school that happens to be called Madison High School, happens to be in Ohio, and happens to have a teacher/coach named Wagner. Definitely didn't happen at the school that article is about, though. Steebster (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a recent CSD nom I made, would you please disclose the username of the initial author of Evane1890? Apparently I was incorrect to assume that that was his username, and posted to a non-existant user's talk page. MrZaius^talk 16:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Evane1890 created the page Evane1890 and, apart from yourself, was the only contributor. TerriersFan (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - Just hadn't touched anything else. I should sleep more. Thanks! MrZaius^talk 15:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the content was considered to be copyright, but there were other deletion comments related to "advertising" or "not notable". I understand, but I based the pattern of the entry on other public schools in the area. Example Monacan High School. It seems to me that no school is more or less notable than another. Other area public and private schools have entries that are allowed. I rewrote the page Veritas Classical Christian School to eliminate any material that was not my own work and referenced the source for my entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A junk one (talk • contribs) 23:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a case can be made for notability but the article needs to stick to the facts and source those - see WP:RS. Better examples to consult are Sumner High School (St. Louis) and The Bear Creek School. I suggest that you create a version in user space at User:A junk one/Veritas Classical Christian School, first, on which I should be pleased to comment. TerriersFan (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good solution, thanks. Didn't think of that. Millstream3 (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for your advice. Horselover Frost (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, hope all is well. Thanks for your input on the OLPHS AfD! It may have been your intention (I know you're an admin), but the redirect you put in did not work automatically. For a hard-redirect to transclude automatically it has to be the first line of code in the page. I've fixed it and closed the discussion now (I was tackling the backlog on AfD). Thanks! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 00:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for tidying up after me and taking the trouble to alert me. However, I was aware that the redirect wouldn't work, and I didn't want it to because it would have concealed the AfD template. Essentially I had set everything up for the redirect in the expectation that the closing editor would activate it, just as you did, if that was the way the AfD was closed. TerriersFan (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input regarding the req. for deletion of 'Henry Barnard School', an article I created. Understanding a little more about site policies such as notability criteria, I totally agree that the content could and should be merged to the school district article. A number of my contributions have been met with resistance from a user who apparently has a negative history or personal issue with this specific community and its sub-pages. Your objectivity is reassuring to newbies such as myself.
C-H-E-E-R-S!--Geezalou (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for formatting the refs. When I attempt to paste into all the format fields it sometimes gets tangled. It could be cut back to one good ref, which ever looks most reliable, as you see fit. Edison (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He blanked and prodded the page yet again. Nfitz (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and now, surprise, surprise, an IP number has done exactly the same thing - twice actually now that I look at the history - I've requested page protection. Nfitz (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've just noticed your edit on the above user's talk page. Just thought I should tell you to not bother to hold out any hope of a reply from him. As you can see from his talk page and the talk page of his other account(User:Tripod86), numerous editors have had problems with his additions to articles, numerous editors have tried to advise him (with varying degrees of politeness) about the aptness of his edits but none of them have ever received a reply. A simple obscenity reply from him would be counted as progress ;-)
Just thought you should know the score. - X201 (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for this - I hadn't realised that he was also operating a sock account. TerriersFan (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, is that a rule or a guideline in wikipedia that says as long as there are local sources, even though the content can not be verified, we keep it cause it is in a third world country? If so, I withdraw any comment on this article, but would like to see where wikipedia addresses this. I always thought sourcing and verifiability were major requirements for wikipedia content inclusion. I have been tagging articles for deletion wrongly from the beginning otherwise.--«JavierMC»|Talk 09:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existence has been verified, by a reliable source, so that is not a ground for deletion. Those parts of the content that are not covered by that source need verifying. However, for any institution, third-world or not, the verification can be from local sources - newspapers, reference books etc. There is no requirement for the sources to be on the Internet or even readily accessible. Once a subject has been verified then the normal practice should be to tag for sources not deletion. However, those parts that have not been sourced can be removed as an editorial action after sufficient time has been given. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That helped a little. I'm still confused, but I guess that is my problem. I can't seem to grasp how anything could therefore be speedy deleted for notability, because any high school football player could have an article written about them if they receive mention in a local newspaper, yet how is that encyclopedic in nature? Shrug. Best for me to just stay away from school related AfD. Anyway, thanks.--«JavierMC»|Talk 20:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your confusion is probably partly my fault; I thought afterwards that I hadn't explained it fully. The reason that some veritably high school footballers are not notable is that they are not inherently notable. However, tertiary educational establishments are considered notable therefore verifiability was the remaining question. 21:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Your further explanation helped clarify it. Cheers.--JavierMC 18:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at his talk page and the comments he directed at us. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to undelete this. There was an initial version which was not copyvio, so technically G12 didn't apply. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had come to that conclusion, separately. TerriersFan (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should revert yourself there. There was just an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Oxfordshire towns by population that closed two days ago. Then you have an IP making this comment and this edit, followed, less than an hour later, by a second IP making this edit. Aside from the fact that less than an hour is not sufficent time for a proper discussion on the merge, especially considering that there was a closed and keep (no consensus), this looks, not your last edit to the page, very pointy to me and possible sockpuppetry. See the contributions of 90.210.78.70, 90.207.38.228 and Dzhugashvili. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK; in my view this was an obvious and uncontroversial merge but in the light of your reasoning I have reverted myself to allow you to sort it. TerriersFan (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 10:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For this edit. I wasn't aware of the 2nd AfD.--Rockfang (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is new discussion at Talk:Odle Middle School. Thanks. --DerRichter (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for deleting my page, it isent ready yet and I rushed it, but can you help me put those little annoying citation things on the page? you can view my page at User:dappl/Kopachuck Middle School —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dappl (talk • contribs) 01:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather confused and offended at the same time that changes I am attempting to make to an article are completely getting overlooked. On the Fort Hill High School page there is a section about Racial Allegations at the school. The source that the writer of that section used is a bais one that does not have all of the facts being dealt with. The way it is writen makes it seem as though the school actually did use racial slurs against the opposing team. The truth of the matter is that the investigation dealing with the problem is still pending, so nothing can be said with certainty. The coach from Fort Hill, as well as the Superintendent of the Allegany Public School System deny all allegations. This being said, since the issue is so controversial I request that the section be taken out until the investigation is finished. All that leaving the article section up is doing is creating more misguided hatred toward Fort Hill, and frankly, I abhor the defamation that Fort Hill has to face. The person who wrote that article obviously intended to harm the reputation of Fort Hill, and did not even do so with accurate information. There is even a notice at the top of the page that states how biased information should be removed, and especially so in this case since it is extremely harmful. The information posted is currently nothing more than heresay mixed with opinion, and does not belong in an online encyclopedia, which should contain only factual evidence. Thank you for listening. Luna the 2nd (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Luna_the_2ndLuna the 2nd (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the trouble to set out your views. However, the section that you excised contained two subjects. You have argued above for the removal of the athletics' incident but why did you also remove the piece about the 'the display of the Confederate Flag'? Many articles include negative material but Wikipedia is not censored. That incident is reliably sourced which is why that it is in there. If the report is wrong then the best way forward is to research a rebuttal and add sourced balancing views. In addition, it would be helpful to argue your case on the article talk page. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 02:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Confederate Flag issue is something else that was blown way out of proportion. The whole incident was started because a mentally challenged (as in, he was barely smart enough not to be in the special education program) student got cut in line by a black girl. He doesn't know how to control himself or react to situations in that way at all so he got flustered and told her to get to the back of the line, as she should have to begin with. She gave him attitude, and not knownig how to react, he said a moderately racist remark and she threatend to punch him in the face, so a teacher intervined. She made a huge deal out of the issue and basically started claiming our school to be racist. Where the flag got a hold in all of this I'm not too certain. The people that wear the flag do not even wear it to be racsit, they wear it as a sign of sourthern pride. However, out of pressure from the public, the principle banned it as to avoid any further trouble. Does one mentally challanged student make an entire school racist? I think not. I can not speak for what others think in their own private lives, but I am not racist, nor have I witnessed any racist incidents at the school or heard any prejudice statements. As for articles being offered as proof, does this mean that if I write a biased article and post it in the paper and offer a link to it, I can say whatever I please based on it? Another article that is not linked to in the section explains how Dunbar passed around articles about the Confederate Flag before they came up to play Fort Hill. They already had a predetermined notion that the school was racist before they even set foot on the field. Furthermore, there is no proof for the claims Dunbar is making. Escentially, the whole issue is nothing more than one word against the other. I do not believe heresay really has a place in an encyclopeida of such high stature. Although I could edit the article like mad and make it as long as one of Shakespear's plays, I do not believe that will solve anything, it will simply create more confrontation and controversy. I believe the issue is best left alone for the time, which is why I would strongly like it to simply be deleted. Even though it may not seem like much to you, it means a lot to people in this neck of the woods. (I appologize for the long posts, but I am very passionate about this.) Luna the 2nd (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Luna_the_2ndLuna the 2nd (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your note has helped me to further understand your concerns. I think that, initially, I should mention that, since you are obviously connected with the school, that you need to be aware of a possible conflict of interest - WP:COI refers. As a first step to addressing your concerns I have altered the relevant section heading to make it neutrally phrased. You mention that there is is a relevant report - would you please supply the URL? Provided that it is a reliable source (for example a regional newspaper and not a blog) then I should be happy to add it to the section, for balance. I think that it is worth my mentioning that I did not author the content and that attempts to remove it have been reverted by several editors; consequently I have no veto over its inclusion. Basically there are two approaches that you can adopt. The first is to raise the matter on the article talk page and seek to gain a consensus. The other is to find balancing/rebutting sources which can be added and it seems that you might have at least one. Have you considered writing to the publications concerned, requesting that they publish a rebuttal to set the record straight? TerriersFan (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the change of tittle header. It draws a lot less attention to the section, which is a good thing. As far as URLs are concerend, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/26/AR2008092603387.html this one more so attempts to show both sides of the story (even though it is still biased towards its home school) and also mentions how Dunbar families passed around Confederate Flag articles before coming to Cumberland. Although, the articles that I believe best show our side of the story, are those in the Cumberland Times News. http://www.times-news.com/archivesearch/local_story_288084442.html That is a letter to the editor explaining how someone retracts what they said about their area and explains how the Washington Post was very baised and swayed their thoughts. http://www.times-news.com/archivesearch/local_story_281095702.html That is the article that he is retracting. http://www.times-news.com/archivesearch/local_story_277095140.html That is an article explaing how the team that played Fort Hill right after Dunbar realized no racism going on at all even though the team is 50% black. http://www.times-news.com/archivesearch/local_story_274091729.html An article about how hospitable Fort Hill was to the team spoke of above. And many pages more if you really would like the rest. Go to the Cumberland Times News website and search "Dunbar". I guarantee you will get pages upon pages of articles saying the exact opposite of the ones the Washington Post say. As far as speaking to those who write the articles for the Post, a friend of mine has already done that. He talked to the reporter for well over an hour explaining our side of the story to him. Regrettably, there is not much that he can do about the way his superiors work. The only thing he can do is go around and obtain quotes from the people up here. Naturally, they do not want to post anything that can hurt their side though, so they tend to only post the bad things they hear people say. The Washington Post has no intent on making this an even playing field. Luna the 2nd (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Luna_the_2nd[reply]

Ta for that; is the section header likely to remain stable? Daniel (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not but I'll re-fix the redirect if it changes. TerriersFan (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for speaking up. You won't need to again. -- Noroton (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I included a proper source in my edit... so why did you remove it?--85.146.181.187 (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your source did not support the statement "The parents made over 1 million pound out of the disappearance of their daughter". They didn't; that money went into an independent fund. Consequently that is defamatory and placed Wikipedia at risk. Secondly, the mortgage payments are already covered elsewhere. TerriersFan (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Livingston Manor Central School District.. thanks for saving it from the "double" CSD "slap"! Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but you were doing a pretty good job yourself. :-) TerriersFan (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. When you add a welcome template to a users talk page please remember to substitute it. If you need more details, help or wish to reply to this message please contact me on my talk page. Thanks ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 14:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them, because its not a common practice to put references to tournaments wins in tennis articles. --Göran S (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be common practice but they are still required - everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. TerriersFan (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Roger Federer, Jelena Jankovic, etc... none of them have references. So why this article should have referencec? --Göran S (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those pages should also have references - WP:V refers. The fact that they don't is an issue with them and doesn't justify this one failing policy, also. However, this is the only one I am interested in so I'm not going to go chasing round all the other tennis articles. ... TerriersFan (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're so interested in this article, then you can make 5 minutes and add these references, because they are so easy to find. Ok, I'll do it. --Göran S (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for the Logo fix can! any way you could help me add it to the company logo section I am a wikinewbie lacrosse100 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.discogs.com/release/40573
• http://albumsoftheday.blogspot.com/2008/04/crustation-bloom-1998.html
• http://www.lastfm.it/music/Crustation/Bloom
• http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/crustation/bloom/
• http://www.trip-hop.net/album-190-crustation-bloom-zomba-records.html
• http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Crustation-Bloom-Album/3DBD28A912673C0B48256A870006502F

The band and its album clearly EXIST (although they now are disbanded). And they were also known in the trip hop scene. So, if thousands of bands that even don't have a full-lenght debut have their page, Crustation have all the right to figure within all other trip hop bands. ;)

Connacht (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, existence is not sufficient; the group must also meet WP:Band. If you consider that enough sources have been found since the article was deleted at AfD, then the way forward is to seek a review at DRV. TerriersFan (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==Deletion review for Crustation==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Crustation. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I did something in the page, I hope that my request is valid. ;) Connacht (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Stafford Leys Primary School (AfD discussion)
• Barlestone Primary School (AfD discussion)

Since you worked on Bishop Ellis Catholic Primary School, you might want to work on these as well. Uncle G (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:1987–88 domestic football (soccer) leagues, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:1987–88 domestic football (soccer) leagues has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:1987–88 domestic football (soccer) leagues, 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. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to send me the note. I totally agree with your reversion of the page move and believe Leeds Road to be the correct page title. I'm just annoyed I forgot about the original RM when the recent incorrect move was made, since I had to trawl through half the pages which were incorrectly pointing to the wrong page. Peanut4 (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to apologise for anything. And it wasn't insensitive wording - my mistake for making you think that. Peanut4 (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I don't think there's anything there that makes this particular primary notable - IMO the information would be better at the "Schools" section of the merge target, which is how primaries are usually treated. I would disagree with the sourcing issue, though - if a few local newspaper stories are "non-trivial third-party coverage", then not only would all primary schools instantly become individually notable, but so would (for example) practically every local politician and amateur football team, the controversial new bypass off the A446 ... clearly, this is only my opinion, but as you'll see, I haven't redirected the article, only applied the merge tag, so further discussion can still happen here. Black Kite 01:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you delete this one also? Schuym1 (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I need specific creator request which I haven't seen, yet. The other two had clear requests. TerriersFan (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll prod it. Schuym1 (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Minervauk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi, this user you blocked is requesting an unblock. The original block was obviously appropriate but his apology appears sincere. Your call. CIreland (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also inclined to unblock on the basis of a genuine mistake by the user , but it's worth checking if you have any other specific reasons that may be easily missed. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - unblocked. TerriersFan (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were instrumental in unblocking this user. Perhaps you might be kind enough to run a mark one eyeball over their contributions. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for the time that you have put in guiding this user. I am keeping his contributions under review but so far they don't justify further action. TerriersFan (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am moving this back to Leeds Road because that was the name of the stadium; it was never known as Leeds Road, Huddersfield. There are numerous precedents - Brisbane Road etc. Also, Leeds Road was the result of a WP:RM. If you are unhappy please raise a further RM. TerriersFan (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i am OK with this. My issue was that there lots of roads named "Leeds Road" about, especially in West Yorkshire. Whereas Brisbane Road, Bramall Lane and Gigg Lane aren't as widespread. But my request would be if you could source of an image of the old stadium to include in the article. As lots of younger fans (and people in Huddersfield) now don't even remember it. You being who you are, a Terriers' fan, hopefully shouldn't have a problem obtaining one. Ta very much --Whohe! (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a link to a site that includes a good range of photos. I am not aware of any that are copyright-free to include in the page. TerriersFan (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a principal is notable in its own right, then it should not be included in a suburb/city article. I have never ever seen this in any city/suburb article I've edited. you are creating a precedent that every school mentioned in a suburb article in WP. I'm aware you have a strong interest in schools, but I think including principals is pushing it. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is absolutely no need to include "K to year 6" for primary schools, almost all primary schools in Australia offer K to year 6, so it's a completely obvious statement of facts. It would be a bit like adding in suburb X they drive on the left hand side of the road. thanks. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you assume that a reader of a locality article has a good knowledge of the Australian education system? Sorry, but your approach is unhelpful and such obviously encyclopaedic information should be included. TerriersFan (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that information should be included in an article Education in Australia, not every single suburb article. That's unless you want to go to every single suburb article in the world and state what years the school caters for. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, sorry to remind you in here. But could you please comment on my reply about BB issue in my talk page ? Thanks --minervauk (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks are not in themselves a reason for deletion from dab pages. If there are incoming links to the redlink, then the item can have an entry if an outgoing bluelink is also provided. You should always click through the redlink to check for incoming links before deleting. SeeMOS:DAB#Red links. SpinningSpark 00:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan, this school is in Category:Blue Ribbon schools in Georgia (U.S. state). However, it isn't in my consolidated list. Before I remove it, perhaps you would be good enough to check against your lists, please? TerriersFan (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TF, I took a look through the sources and I can find none that supports this school as having been recognized by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program. Any claims in the article should be removed (if I haven't done so already before you read this reply). Alansohn (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. TerriersFan (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that this article on Cody Images has been marked for deletion. I can find many sources online listing the company, however most sources are in long picture credit lists in books they have provided to publishers. Is there some way I can improve the article concerning their work? Should I perhaps list some of the companies they work with, or their publications? Glasgowcat (talk)

What is needed is a review of the company in a reliable source or a feature dealing with its work. Credit lists, links from companies that promote their work etc don't count, I am afraid. Google news, a standard reference source, produces little here. TerriersFan (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, and I thank you for the link - I see that articles do seem bare online!. After checking the listing of Stock Photography companies at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stock_photography I find that almost half of these companies do not comply with your criteria, and use directory listings as source. Should they also be deleted, or do other criteria apply in companies which do not produce media articlesGlasgowcat (talk)

They all have to meet WP:ORG. The fact that those that do not have independent, reliable sources have not been proposed for deletion may mean that such sources are available but not yet added or it may just mean that no-one has got around to considering it for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you could take a look at D.A.V. Public School, Thane. Someone seems to have added a deletion tag but the link is to the old AfD debate. I don't like to remove the AfD tag, but it seems odd that it should come up for deletion twice in just a few weeks. Many thanks. Dahliarose (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. TerriersFan (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has more than the usual content I see in some school articles and a lot of the issues the nominator mentions can be addressed through editing. But none of that really matters if it's unsourced. The possibility of being sourced is nice, but he's got a point; we don't want to wait another year for someone to fix it. I'm not an immediatist, but a certain speed is desireable.

Could you drop the sources you found into the article? It would help the article's safety. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it's not votes for deletion for a reason; according to the deletion guide, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy". That said, while you did provide solid sources which could be used, they didn't demonstrate that the list itself was notable; if anything, the coverage pointed to the fact that it was a celebrity that got another shot, not the lost 1 million as much. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for prompt reply, that's fine lets leave it as it is for now but lets revisit when some other contributors have given opinions as on the whole I do feel that primary schools are generally not notable. Paste ^Talk 21:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I fully agree that generally primary schools are not-notable. However, this has struck me throughout as being an exception. TerriersFan (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Terriers - I saw your work about images of children, and wondered if you might be interested in taking a look at this proposal too.... there's a fair bit of heat on the talk page, but I'm hoping to get feedback on the actual ideas, hence this note :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your edits to Wincanton Primary School & several other schools in Somerset. This AfD has led to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Somerset#Wincanton Primary School at AfD about the poor state of school articles in the county. As a member of WikiProject Schools could you offer any help, advice or guidance on the best way to get these improved?— Rod ^talk 18:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you did {{reflist|3}} on Somerset. I undid it and replaced it with {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}. This is a much more elegant solution as it selects the number of columns based on the screen/browser's width. Forcing it to three columns looks terrible on a laptop with a 1024px wide screen. See the solution for yourself on the Somerset page by reducing/increasing the width of your browser while looking at the references section. --TimTay (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is helpful, thanks. TerriersFan (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC:_Career_and_LicesningMattnad (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]