User talk:Five Years/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is Archive #3 for User talk:Five Years
Archive This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalise an old topic, bring it up on User talk:Five Years.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Contents

[edit] Rivalry

OK barnsey. If you dont read this it at your peril. Read very very carefully. You are at a school that has traditionally been a rival of guildford for probably over 50 years by now - your leaving comments on the wesley and guildford pages (and editing) makes it sound as if you have a problem. You should be very careful.

So far you have had fun finding out all the things not to do on wikipedia by doing them, and you are wandering into areas that really you should restrain yourself. You ignore that and you might find that those editors who have been patient with you so far might simply not want to support you.

You need to be reminded WP:Civility and WP:Wikiquette and your 'equality' issue with guildford lowers your status as an editor because you are showing that you take no notice of advice. If you wish to create a notable and verifiable article about aquinas chapel and junior school as separate articles - get on with it and leave editors at other schools to their work. If you do a WP:PA at the current moment in the general atmosphere - expect something big, smelly and heavy to drop from some height.

If you dont understand what I am saying - please feel free to ask me a question before wandering into other school talk pages the way you have done. SatuSuro 13:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion at my comment.

I am hoping you to see you restore the link you removed my from comment at the Wesley talk page. I think that the reason is obvious, it makes it look like you supplied the link and me look like a drongo. This should be the first thing you do in your next session. It exceptionally bad form to edit anothers words on talk pages. - Fred 09:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate, no worries. I thought that was what happened and believed you may have missed my comment (it was not at the bottom your page). Click the recent change not New Message when that orange bar pops up. Cheers. - Fred 09:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Okay if I clean those struck comments up (i.e. delete them), or do you want it to remain as a record of the conversation? Hesperian 11:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Senior Service project at Aquinas, and the peer review

Hey there, thanks heaps for getting back to me, and for the invite to do a peer review. I hope my review helps at all, and if you have no objections I'll get onto fixing most of the prose issues that I pointed out. Things such as photos, though, I'll have to leave up to you!

On the topic I messaged you about last week, cheers for adding the ‘Community Service’ section: it addresses those thoughts I had expressed a while back, and rounds out the ‘Student Life’ section in a balanced way.

Rob Lindsey 12:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aquinas College

Hi there. I just thought to save you the trouble of editing the article X number of times each day, that you copy a revision to a document and edit that. Then at the end of the day you can copy it back into the article space. This would make it more convienient for you, and might make the history of the page less crowded. :) --Ali K 21:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography

Fair enough. It's also called 'Further Reading' in the main wikipedia layout guide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Further_reading

I don't imagine there'd be more than 3-5 appropriate sources in this list, but I suggested it for the sake of completeness. As the guide points out, formatting of the bibliography is the same as the formatting for the references section. Rob Lindsey 07:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Canning Bridge School. Published 2000. Summary History of Aquinas and Canning Bridge schools opened in 1936, (Canning Bridge now Manning School). Subject Manning Primary School -- History. Canning Bridge School -- History. Aquinas College (Manning, W.A.) -- History. Schools -- Western Australia -- Manning -- History. Found in Canning Bridge to Clontarf, p.27-32 SatuSuro 08:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying anything - i simply checked a source - and it has a case of florey being cited. It could be wrong. Its up to you what to do with that info. SatuSuro 08:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Your response at Guildford Grammar talk requires answering here as there is little to do with the actual article - but actually how to find information. I have a number of issues to deal with on and off wiki - I might find time later this evening or tomorrow SatuSuro 09:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Would you stop mucking around with talk page headers? Have you got a problem or what? SatuSuro 12:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
And why should this be on the guildford grammar talk page?:-
Comment - Aquinas was technically founded in 1894 as Christian Brothers College, Perth hence why Aquinas is the school that holds all of CBC's PSA Trophies .... Smbarnzy 06:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

SatuSuro 12:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing Guildford Grammar School Chapel

Hi! I'm willing to work with you on the referencing here - I do agree that things need references, but just not over the top. The Western Australian State Register of Heritage Places has a listing for the GGS Chapel as it's listed. By the way, here is its PDF file listing. I think this would be sufficient for some things. The Archivists Organisation has some further reading on both the Chapel and the School, while this page has some extremely useful architectural references, as well as historical. It includes a few books. If you're doing a Google search, you might want to key in other search terms, as the Chapel is known by numerous names (like The Chapel of SS. Mary and George, or The Chapel of St. Mary and St. George). The Headmaster who brought the Chapel into the school (Canon P.U. Henn) is mentioned here. I might go ahead and add them - what do you think? Auroranorth Auroranorth 09:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys have been brought up on too much web based orientation - you seem to have no idea that there are books out there. Google is not where you start on this sort of thing for a start - there are other search engines more likely to have info.

It is very easy to put books in a school article - cite them - and show no sign of having ever actually held copies in your hands .

  • Points to make - The heritage register work on the chapel is very poor quality and cannot even cite books properly. It is not sufficient for a properly constructed article.
  • Neither of your guys have shown much interest in books - so you trawl the net at your own peril - and dont expect any defence against afd if you over rely on web based info - you actually need to go into your school libraries or archives and actually look at written sources.

SatuSuro 09:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GGS subjects

Would you please communicate directly with auroranorth - for a whole lot of reasons I'm not interested in dealing with the ggs, ggs chapel or other issues related at the moment - I'm out - please take the conversation away from my talk page, thanks SatuSuro 10:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JSHAA

Great! I was heavily involved in their activites when I was in the Prep School. I honestly believe the Aquinas College, Perth article is fantastic, and all PSA schools should be just as good. Have you already created an outline for the JSHAA page? Auroranorth 10:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the JSHAA encompasses junior schools from all around Australia ([1]). There are state branches ([2] and [3]). The website provides much information on the Association, and I better give you the acronym: Junior School Heads Association of Australia. Auroranorth 10:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding an infobox for the JSHAA page, and I've created a redirect. Right now it's not showing up... I have the logo and would be willing to put it on the article asap. What about this? Auroranorth 10:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Got the pic and infobox - don't edit the page just yet! Auroranorth 11:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Not that long! Maybe you should create a separate page for your ideas, like Junior School Heads Association of Australia/Smbarnzy. I'm finished with pic and userbox. We need to reference early on, so it won't be a problem later on. One question - how do you reference like on the AC article? My referencing's pretty bad - it's all [4]-type thing. Auroranorth 11:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Got the ref thing sorted. Auroranorth 11:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Was that meant to be unwikified? It came out as [1] on my page. Auroranorth 11:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It's because of the infobox - you have to remove the infobox to remove the gap :( Please leave the article for about 10 min - I'm doing some serious additions on the state branches. Auroranorth 11:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing the same page multiple times.

Hi again, just another note about making multiple edits to the same page within the same day (or minutes!). It would be a lot neater if you didnt do this, although there is no reason you cant. When it comes to your RFA, people may not count a lot of your edits because of it. Take it into consideration. --Ali K 11:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose not, but it is annoying the crap out of me and many others :P --Ali K 11:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ali K comments it is annoying it also means that the article constantly appears at the top of watchlists and attracts unnecessarily attention from those monitoring recent changes for vandalism, which could make it more likely to have an attack ignored for long periods. Also using edit summaries helps. Gnangarra 12:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If you dont understand barnsey , what they are saying - is that your are disrupting the community in which you exist - create a sandbox - and use it! SatuSuro 12:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
create a new page on your user page - it must have your user name in it so it doesn become an orphan and call it /sandbox - if you dont understand go to someones userpage who has one and look at it in edit this page

but never ever ever ever edit another users page that is short of instant death warrant.... look at it see how it works - and make your own and work on stuff in your userbox - you can muck around in there - and when you are ready - transfer it out. SatuSuro 12:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have created User:Smbarnzy/Sandbox for you. Hesperian 12:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
In case you're not aware, the point of the sandbox is you can copy-paste an article you're working on into it; fiddle around with it to your heart's content, and once you've got it right, paste your improved article over the original. That way all your fiddly edits end up compacted into one big edit. If you want an idea of what I'm talking about, you can have a look at the utter mess in mine. Hesperian 12:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JSHAA (2)

Take a look at JSHAA now! Auroranorth 11:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking more of a featured article nomination. ;) Auroranorth 12:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll be an hour or so then I'll get onto the JSHAA article. Auroranorth 08:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You still editing? Auroranorth 10:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. Will you fix that? No wonder you can't edit a Queensland bit - there isn't a site. Auroranorth 10:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I've got a picture of the President (Image:President1.jpg) Image:President1.jpg, and I can't find a suitable place for it...
I'm getting all my info off their state branch pages... Auroranorth 11:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello - I can't get the caption up... how can I do that?? Auroranorth 11:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The improvements section - I don't get it (the part about sub sections). please elaborate. Auroranorth 11:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting there! When do you suggest we put up for peer review or good article status? Auroranorth 12:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
How about if we ask the JSHAA directly? Auroranorth 12:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll contact the national JSHAA Auroranorth 12:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
See you tomorrow. Auroranorth 13:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

I archive almost daily now, so if your discussion has been moved, then just make a new one... Smbarnzy 10:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JSHAA (3)

Still doing JSHAA? Auroranorth 12:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Right now I won't be able to do it, but maybe late tonight or sometime tomorrow I'll give a major contribution. Try expanding the State Branches section. Auroranorth 12:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that we should do this. It makes me uneasy writing about someone who can actually tell me off for writing about them...!!!Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 10:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Now that you have linked your page to all those other articles on your user page it is worth knowing that in 'what links here' on all those pages will in fact show your user name'. If you dont want that - you need to put : inside each item, thought you might like to know that SatuSuro 14:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK enough of that - - just remember any link you dont want to link with the - brackets colon words brackets.- That should cut you off from linking. Have a good monday and take it easy! cheers SatuSuro 14:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review/Aquinas College, Perth/archive4

You blanked the page (for the second time) and said there's a link on the talk page (which there isn't). This is discourteous to the reviewers as they cannot see what you've done to improve the article (and I see you haven't taken up all the suggestions anyway). There is no point in reviewing or offering suggestions to your articles if you're going to do this and I won't be in future. Just leave it where it was and stop creating your own non-standard archiving systems. —Moondyne 15:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment in TfD

You said to keep in Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_3#.5B.5BTemplate:Kendall_County.2C_Illions.5D.5D but gave no explanation. Since XfD's are not a vote, could you explain why there should be a duplicate of Template:Kendall County, Illinois with a misspelled name? —dgiestc 22:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bagula

Hi there. I noticed you tagged this article as a speedy on the grounds of "nonsense". A quick reading would indicate that, in spite the bad grammar, this is a stub on an Indian town. You may or may not know (I don't know how long you've been here) that any geographic location is automatically notable, no matter how small or remote. Dennitalk 04:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JSHAA TfD Debate

I've already voted, unless they've removed it... Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 09:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aquinas College, Perth

Re your comments, these templates are not important as has already been highlighted significantly in the TfD discussion for the templates in question. Additionally, a massive cleanup has been performed of the entities in question and the re-addition of this template negates the correct category method cleanup by re-adding redundant categories. revert to be performed and watchlisted accordingly. thewinchester 09:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Trying to convince them of the merits of your case is probably the most productive approach. Thank you. Orderinchaos78 12:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
...this will not be tolerated![5] is unproductive language and unnecessary. Tone down your demands and discuss politely and try to build collaborations. —Moondyne 12:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You've been talked to, and accusing someone of Vandalism is a pretty serious call which you need to be able to back up. From the WP policy on this matter, vandalism is defined as any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia'. Based on the above definition, what is the specifics of your claim which justifies the accusation of vandalism? Are you saying that a good faith effort to clean up the encyclopaedia to remove links to a redundant category who's function is already being served by another legitimately named, correctly constructed, and more appropriate category is vandalism? Such an opinion is not only misguided but is also in direct conflict with stated Wikipedia policy. By your own admission in two CfD debates have conceded that the categories and associated pages need appropriate reconstruction which has been done and removal of these categories is only a matter of administrative procedure. As to the changes, I have already discussed these with two editors more senior than myself (In excess of 9000+ edits) on the WP:WP WA and WP:WP Perth projects who have totally agreed with the need for these edits. Your continued efforts at baseless defence for these changes does nothing to benefit the encyclopaedia to the point where I would seriously consider referring you to mediation or at worst AN/I. Please stop, step back, and look at this from an objective and encyclopaedic point of view before taking any further actions to revert legitimate changes. Additionally, any further changes by yourself could be considered a clear violation of WP:3RR which can see you sanctioned from WP for a period no less than 24hrs. I'm fair and reasonable to a point, having waded through some pretty serious WP issues such as neutrality and ethnic conflicts involving information on wars, border disputes, and the very nature of documented and accepted history. I've been both considerate and tolerant of your young nature and your lack of distinct editing history experience outside a very small set of topics, but there is a limit which can be crossed at some point where official WP action will need to be taken. Threats and patent misrepresentation such as the line you are seeming to pursue will push that boundary to the point of official action. thewinchester 12:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Further to this, op-shopping to get opinions and viewpoints which you like is just silly. It does not bode well for how people will see you in the WP community. If you don't like something, please go off and fix it yourself. However, you by the nature of your actions have already alerted a number of WP editors who I can say are watching you even closer than before. If you don't like someone's change, go and fix it yourself - but remember to think about all the comments you have received thus far and ask yourself if making these changes is really wise for you to do given the context and nature of the issues you have brought about by doing so. thewinchester 12:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
If I want an interpretation of Moondyne's comments, then I will ask for it from him as he was the one who left the comments. Please re-read my above comments and refrain from making pointless edits on my talk page in the hope that you achieve a level of self-serving pleasure by asking someone to do something you are both capable of doing and can easily take care of yourself. Of course I re-emphasise my above comments that you need to ask yourself if making these changes is really wise for you to do given the context and nature of the issues you have brought about by doing so. thewinchester 13:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 12:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArticleHistory

Might I ask, what don't you like about the template? It just combines banners that were there anyway, namely the facfailed and peerreviews. Gimmetrow 14:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Smbarnzy: No, you cannot revert it. You don't own the article or the talk page. The template is being rolled out for all articles and amalgamates the plethora of templates currently in use as well as providing permanent links to reviewed or promoted versions. There is consensus for it being there. —Moondyne 14:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GGS

I agree. I'll get started on that now. I've nominated Percy Henn for Good Article status - what do you think? Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 10:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You've got a desk too! Well done. GA... it meets the criteria, but is there enough info? Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 10:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kyriakos

You've both supported and opposed this RfA. I'd suggest that you strike out one of your votes, depending on what your opinion actually is (change the # at the start to #:<s>, and write </s> at the end). --ais523 13:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

... and there it is. Don't let the red link fool you, Smbarnzy: Jeffrey O. Gustafson is a highly respected and experienced administrator. He had deleted an image incorrectly uploaded under fair use provisions, and his edit to Placebo removed the resultant red link. You reverted back to a version with a broken image link. Furthermore you reverted Jeffery like you would revert a vandal, without the courtesy of an edit summary, let along a message on the talk page or his user talk page. I've waited ten minutes to see if you would follow up on this in any way, and you have not. This is the kind of thoughtless action that starts edit wars and arguments, and generally disrupts Wikipedia. Per my previous message, I have blocked you for 24 hours. Hesperian 11:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, i have been blocked Mr hesperian. I make a request and that is, i need my sandbox - im referencing the Placebo (band) artcicle, and will need it 2morow when i come back to edit. Thanks SMBarnZy 12:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The block page says i should request un-blocking on my talk page - it was an honest mistake and everyone knows it, just be a good bloke this time. I acted in Good Faith and was forgetful i think that i should be un-blocked and take this as a warning SMBarnZy 12:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. But Moondyne, myself and others made it very clear to you yesterday and today that you were making too many "honest mistakes" and it was disrupting Wikipedia. I think that you should remain blocked and take this as a warning. You'll be welcome back tomorrow. Hesperian 12:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm arriving here late but want to say I fully support this block. You can come back tomorrow and will hopefully take heed of all of the advice that you've been given. —Moondyne 14:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your email, your block expires at 8:54pm your time. Hesperian 11:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Good on ya mate. I've removed the blocked template from above, as it is no longer current, but some people might object to you removing it yourself. Hesperian 12:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you get blocked? I can't see... Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 12:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, im working hard on my wiki-ness :)ive realised that if me and wiki are to work, then i have to be more polite and ALWAYS be nice to people. Thanks for the help SMBarnZy 12:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to keep badgering you but I do want to reinforce that the above is only half the problem. SatuSuro hit the nail on the head above: Good intentions is not enough. I know the quote was referring to Auroranorth, but it equally applies to you. We are not here to endlessly debate your minority views on notability of articles and categories and templates. We are not here to tidy up continuous minor errors of protocol and procedure that you both make regularly. You desperately need to get in synch with what community expectations and not to stray too far from that. And you are correct that you need to be nice to people ALWAYS. Not even most of the time - ALWAYS. Good luck. —Moondyne 01:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Note - i have chosen not to reply to the last message because i do not want to create any tension within the community SMBarnZy 01:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I fully support the prevous block of this user. In my encounters with him he has failed to show knowledge of Wikipedia's policy and has made no effort to learn these polices despite the lenght of period he has been here. Tighten up the act there Barnzy. BTW I still play cricket, what were you on about?--HamedogTalk|@ 04:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Consensus between admins and a few 'disruptive' edits that were stopped two days before. Auroranorth (WikiDesk) 08:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand you comment here Auroranorth, so chances are Smbarnzy isn't going to either.--HamedogTalk|@ 08:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JSHAA

Hi, You've been creating articles listing the members of the above-mentioned organisation. As you yourself note in one of the resulting AfD debates, this is a "notable category". Assuming that it is, and that sub-categories can be created, there really is no need for all of the list articles: the category suffices. I'd like to strongly encourage you to stop creating this kind of article, and encourage you to focus your energies on more productive areas.

All the best,

WMMartin 15:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If you're interested in working on articles that have something in common with your own school, you might want to take a look at St_Thomas_Aquinas_Catholic_School, which is a bit scrappy and certainly needs work. I know you're mostly an expert on Australian topics, but when I saw this one you were the first person I thought of !

I agree with WMMartin. I'll try to explain the role of templates, lists and categories. Note that very few lists deserve to be represented through all three types:
  • Templates are a useful navigation tool for readers who need to quickly move from one article to the next where the articles are in a tight grouping. Schools which are only grouped by a common membership of an association would have a very low demand for a navigation template as few readers would care about that. Mine and many others view of these things is that they are OK if kept to a minimum but uglify an article when there are too many in one article. At this point they become contentious and debatable. Categories often fit the bill much better.
  • Lists are fine but completely pointless if they only contain the names of the list items and a category is available. If there's some useful and encyclopaedic additional data, like say enrolment numbers, year of establishment then there may be a case for the list article. Otherwise don't bother.
  • Categories are easy to create and self-maintaining as new articles come on board. They can be incorporated into an existing hierarchical structure. The downside is that they can't contain redlinks. If you create one by mistake or misspell it you will need an admin to fix. They can't be renamed like articles can.
Far too many of your articles and templates have been nominated for deletion and subsequently deleted per community consensus. This should be telling you that you need to slow down and think hard before you start creating these. If you work collaboratively within guidelines and policies and take advice from experienced editors then you can know that you're making a contribution. Else, if you continue to create content which is always up for debate and discussion, and then call people vandals who are only following the guidelines, then you may as well leave now. Have a think about it and good luck. —Moondyne 00:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: calling people vandals, I agree absolutely. Your argument with Thewinchester on Monday was not an isolated incident; you have been getting into edit wars and arguments ever since you joined up. In hindsight, it is astonishing that you have kept a clean block log for so long. Clearly, Moondyne and I have failed in our obligation to uphold community standards of behaviour. Speaking for myself, I'm not going to turn a blind eye to it any longer. Consider yourself warned that you will be blocked if your disruptive behaviour continues. Hesperian 01:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Ditto from me re the blocking. Your behaviour here to date is less than the standards required to continue to participate in this project. There will be no more warnings. I could go back through your edit history now and cite several exchanges which should have earned you a block. If you fail to follow our official policy on civility you won't be participating here any longer. —Moondyne 01:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Re your comments at auroras talk page regarding good intentions - sorry Barnsey it isnt, if when you finish school and hop on the computer - if you log into wikipedia you have rules and policies to abide by - you dont invent new games and tricks, you follow accepted patterns. Good intentions has nothing to do with it SatuSuro 07:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with most of the above. I think if you take the advice on board, you should be fine. I've seen people fired for less in workplaces, and let's face it, Wikipedia is a pretty easy place to learn some of these lessons early and take them with you. Comes down to respect, which is a mutual game as if you respect others then you in turn will earn their respect in dealing with you. Orderinchaos78 07:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria Avenue

That's a good idea. There's a few major road articles done - see Category:Major roads in Perth, Western Australia. You may want to read a few to get some ideas. Try to maintain the article naming convention. i.e. Victoria Avenue, Perth. —Moondyne 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

My thoughts:

  • Western Australian Gold Rush
This would be a big challenge and needs scoping first - which goldrush and where? There were several and over a wide geographical spread. See Mining in Western Australia which needs expansion. It may be better to work on expanding that article - its badly needed. But by all means have a go if you wish - just make sure you do some planning first else you'll dig a big hole for yourself (no pun intended)
That'd be a good one and would be my recommendation. See [6] for some background
  • Clune Park
The content will overlap with the suburb of Riverton, Western Australia and on its own would be very borderline notable. It would be better to expand Riverton and/or Canning River (Western Australia). This discussion produced some good references provided by User:Petedavo. You may be able to find some of them - particularly the first one (Along the Canning) at your local library. Most council libaries do have a copy and if not can get you one.

Good luck —Moondyne 07:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

What do I think?: no, no and no. All non-notable.

Hockey club: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Aquinians Hockey Club. The article was basically nominated because of notability concerns but speedied on the basis of copyvio. Notability is still the issue and I would advise against it.

List of Alumni: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alumni of Aquinas College, Perth. There are no hard and fast rules on this, but college alumni really only deserve to be listed if they themselves are notable or deserving of their own article. If they're not notable, why list them at all - else you may as well list the entire student cohort. The current list is not too long in terms of inclusion in the article (see Marlborough College for example) but is too long as some of the names listed should not be there. Eton College and Harrow School have their own list articles but they have both been around for 500+ years. Aquinas has been around since 1937.

That's what I think. But you have to judge what you do yourself based on your own interpretation of community standards and guidelines. In particular, you need to consider that these articles have only recently been discussed at AfD. You also need to consider your current standing in the community and that if there was a future nomination of one or more of these potential new articles at AfD whether some Wikipedians may consider your creation of these was done in good faith or just to make a point. Its up to you which way you go. —Moondyne 15:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)