User talk:S charette/Archive 2

User talk:S charette/Archive 1: October 2005 to April 2006

---

In regards to Wikipedia, several things you should know about me:

1. I'm not perfect. If I've done something wrong or something that offends you, just let me know -- I most likely didn't even realize what happened! See WP:AGF.
2. I strongly believe in WP:CITE. Especially since while I'm on patrol for vandalism I end up reading through articles on unfamiliar subjects. Without the proper references and citations, there are times when it can be difficult to tell between fact and targetted vandalism.
3. I strongly believe in WP:OWN. I've run into several articles now on Wikipedia where someone believes they own the article and wont let anyone else contribute. I think this harms Wikipedia. If you feel so strongly about a topic or an article that you wont let anyone else touch it, then you contribute to the type of frustration that causes editors to turn away from Wikipedia.
4. Quote: Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views. Or rather, we feel about them the way that a natural history museum feels about tigers. We admire them and want our visitors to see how fierce and clever they are, so we stuff them and mount them for close inspection, with all sorts of carefully worded signs to get people to appreciate them as much as we do. But however much we adore tigers, a live tiger loose in the museum is seen as an urgent problem. Source: WP:TIGERS.
5. Quote: There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. Source: Jimmy Wales, WikiEN-l mailing list.

Please add new topics or comments at the bottom of this talk page.

--Stephane Charette 07:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Education in Canada

I was bold and added cellpadding to the template. — Usgnus 18:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sir William Borlase's Grammar School

Yeah sure I'll do some work on SWBGS. It needs to be started again really. MikeyF 01:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:AllSaintsSchoolLogo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:AllSaintsSchoolLogo.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.101.76 07:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My fault. Of the several dozen logo images I've uploaded for school articles, this one wasn't tagged correctly as {{PreK12-logo}}. Now fixed. --Stephane Charette 07:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox: Education in Canada

I am done editing for now. Feel free to change anything. If you want me to remove things from the template or otherwise simplify it, I'd be happy to do so. I'd also be happy explaining the features so that you could edit it yourself. --Usgnus 00:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Question about copyvio

You did great for the most part, except you replace the copyright material with the copyvio tag. Hope this helps. Ardenn 01:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea is, that there's an opportunity given for an area to re-write it. Ardenn 01:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Stalking

U had your account blocked once for spamming my talk page and stalking me, please don't make that happen again. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I replied to this on SirIsaacBrock's talk page here:

SirIsaacBrock, I'm not threatened by your repeated attempts to threaten me. You've already tried to have me marked as a vandal, and that didn't work for obvious reasons -- I'm not a vandal. Any administrator who looks up my contributions can immediately see I'm not a vandal. You bully people, you remove edits with inapropriate edit summary comments ([1], [2], [3]), you remove warnings from your talk page, and then archive the talk page hoping no-one will notice you archived "cleaned up" copies. Please play fair with everyone who contributes to Wikipedia. Please also note that users leaving you messages on your talk page is not spamming, so you leaving messages on various other talk pages telling people to stop 'spamming' when you disagree with opinions is not appropriate ([4], [5], [6], [7]). The talk pages were designed to allow people to contact each other. Please play fairly. --Stephane Charette 02:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your about-me box

Just a thank-you: I liked it so much, I've gratuitously stolen your about-me box for my talk page as well! :) dewet|✉ 04:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad you like it. Thanks for letting me know! --Stephane Charette 05:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Google Web Accelerator and Autoblock

I noticed your comment over on Talk:Google Web Accelerator and posted a reply to you there, though mostly for the benefit of other GWA users who might be curious about the block. You get this note. :)

There's little that can be done to keep GWA users from being blocked on Wikipedia. Sadly, the way GWA works, it makes it nearly impossible to minimize damage on blocks and autoblocks. If you're interested in more information, I put my own experiences into a section at Wikipedia talk:Autoblock. I assume that by now you've already discovered how to keep GWA autoblocks from affecting your Wikipedia experience.

Thank you for your patience with this issue!

~Kylu (u|t) 04:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

David and Mary Thomson C.I.

i HAVE!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crazykid76 (talk • contribs) .

I put it on my watchlist, and I'll be glad to help keep it under control. I'm sure it'll settle down pretty soon, once the various parties get over the excitement of their recent elections. Keep up the good work, and here's to NPOV (/me raises glass). --Robth^Talk 05:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A MESSAGE FROM DYLAN BRADBURY

S charette:

My name is Dylan Bradbury, and as you probably know, I am the newly elected President at David and Mary Thomson. I would like to thank you for your help in keeping the David and Mary Thomson C.I. page clean. I have a few worries, some readers have begun to believe that I am crazykid76. I have no affilitation with the user, and I would greatly appreciate if you could make this clear to the users who believed this. It's bad publicity. I had to post this message on the page to get crazykid's attention:

Ok,

Here is the thing.

Crazykid76, you are misleading people to believe that you have some influential say into what goes on in the school. I do not know what is wrong with you, but you really need to stop editing articles. People are beginning to believe that I am editing this article to promote my popularity. This really doesn't bode well with me. I don't know where you were getting your information, but you know WAY too much about me and the rest of the SAC. I do not know what your intentions are either, you seem to have an obsession and it worries me.

As well as impersonating members of the school, you've begun to write threatening messages online. Wikipedia is a GREAT tool, and you should not abuse it. I urge the wikipedia people to block your account, as it seems that all you do is abuse it.

Crazykid76, how about you work on a biography on yourself. You seem pretty proficient in wikipedia's language. Put it to good use.

Again, please don't edit this page again Crazykid76.

However,

S charette, I am not familiar with the wikipedia language, but if there is a way to allow Crazykid to see this, please make it so. I put the message here because I assume this is all he does. I applaud you for putting up with such a vandal, and if there is any info about David and Mary Thomson C.I. you would like to know contact me. Good Luck!

I thank you again for your help! And notify the readers that believe I am Crazykid76, that I am not CrazyKid76. Sorry for the inconvience, and the hassle.

Dylan Bradbury 21:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I do not mean to be rude, but there must be some mistake. You see I created my account today, so that I could stop the vandalism of David and Mary Thomson's own webpage. I wrote the letter to CrazyKid76, to stop the vandalism, and I apoligize, I did not now about the discussion page, and I would have originally posted it there if I would have known. I would greatly appreciate. Again, I have created my account today. I feel that I am being attacked for someone else's actions. Crazykid76 is a vandel, I am a believer in this. Ask any of my friends, and they will tell you that I am a law abiding citizen, and a role-model memeber of society. If there is a way to prove this, I will. --Dylan Bradbury 23:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

College of Toronto and copyvio question

I've taken College of Toronto which was {{copyvio}}, and created a brand new non-copyvio article at College of Toronto/Temp. So can I now remove the {{copyvio}} tag and replace it with the article I've written? Or can that really only be done by administrators? The copyvio template seems to indicate it can only be done by an administrator:

An administrator will move your new article into place once the copyright status of the original has been resolved.

Thanks! --Stephane Charette 06:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess an admin needs to do it so the copyvio stuff can be deleted, and the new version can be moved into the right place. I have done that for you, happy editing.--Commander Keane 06:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Stephane Charette 06:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

double redirect

Usgnus, what does "double redirect" mean? Here is the edit in question: CSDNE. Thanks! --Stephane Charette 03:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I was eliminating a double redirect. I moved the original page to use a simple apostrophe instead of a right single quote. So I changed the CSDNE page to redirect to the new location instead of the previous location, which is now a redirect page. -- Usgnus 05:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Csdgno-logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Csdgno-logo.gif. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Forgot the tag again. This has been fixed. --Stephane Charette 06:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

New Education in Canada Project Page

Thanks for the recent work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Canada. This was a significant improvement. Wakemp 01:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

For reworking the Education in Canada WikiProject The Barnstar of National Merit for Canada. Wakemp 02:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Wakemp!  :) --Stephane Charette 03:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

G-d/God

Within judaism bc you cant write/say G-d's name in vein and also you cant erase it once it is written. It's also a sign of respect.--Gregorykay 19:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

BC Schools

Thanks, the later ones he has put the correct format date, so I'm not worried. Rich Farmbrough 23:37 13 June 2006 (GMT).

Impersonating

Thanks for the heads up, it wasn't me. I really don't know why he would impersonate me. -- Jeff3000 01:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Brusqueness

Sorry about that. You added to your comment while I was composing my reply, which led to an edit conflict. A result, I had to remove the first part of my reply. I guess what remained did not sound so good. -- Usgnus 14:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

question...

hey S charette...hows it going...anyways...you seemed pretty knowledgeable on the customs and rules of the wikiproject "education in canada"...i was wondering if you could take a look at a dilemna i have...at here... your opinion is greatly valued and appreciated... thanks zeChinaman 01:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

hello again...time for me to consult your wisdom once again :P...there is an article, Westdale Seconday School....it's supposed to be about Westdale Secondary School, but the title is spelt wrong...now....i've sent the contributor a PM...as well as leaving a msg on the discussion page explaining the situation...now in this case, should i go ahead and merge+ redirect? your suggestions as always are appreciated :) zeChinaman 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ohhh...lovely. Normally, you'd simply move the article into the the correct place. In this case it looks like we have 2 articles for the same school. Is any of this text copyvio? The first version of each article were written by 2 completely different people, yet portions of the text are exactly the same. If parts of the text are copyvio as I suspect, then this is what you need to do:

1. replace the content of Westdale Seconday School with "#REDIRECT Westdale Secondary School
2. replace the content of Westdale Secondary School with "{{copyvio|URL_of_copyvio_text}}"
3. follow the instructions given by {{copyvio}} to list the copyvio at Wikipedia Copyright Problems
4. follow the link from the middle of the copyvio template, which I believe will link to something like Westdale Secondary School/Temp to create a new article
5. create a new article which isn't composed of sections of text stolen from another web site

Let me know when you're done, and we'll get an administrator to take the new article you wrote at step 4 and re-install that as the school article. --Stephane Charette 22:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

1. should i be bold here or wait for response from the other contributor first?
2. the only copyvio text from Westdale Secondary School is "The building was designed by architects Prack and Prack with the "school gothic" architectural style of arched doorways and pseudo-buttresses. It was constructed by J.M. Piggott Construction Company at an initial cost of $1,306,521.00(including land, 4.7 hectares)." , which is the same as parts on Westdale Seconday School. It is from here, second paragraph. There is not any more copyvio on Westdale Secondary School (srry...architectural is too boring for me...but i'll reword it), however the Westdale Seconday School article is composed almost entirely of text from the aforesaid link.
3. copyvio problem fixed if i just reword that section?

again thanks for input :) zeChinaman 23:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

srry again lol...as an added note...my first attempt at the Westdale Secondary School article was deleted due to intense copyrightvio...so i have watched my prose carefully since :)...that one archetictural bit must've slipped me...thanks again :) zeChinaman 23:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to wait for the original author -- the article is copyvio, and is mispelled. In that case, I'd fix up the bit you need to fix in the "real" article, then simply create a redirect out of the misspelled article. Edit the misspelled one, remove all text, and instead add the text #REDIRECT [[Westdale Secondary School]]. That should be it. --Stephane Charette 00:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

merci beaucoup for the advice :) zeChinaman 14:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Honorary

Hi there. I know that both British and US spelling are used in Wikipedia, and that honour can be spelt 'honor' or 'honour' depending on the dialect.

Perhaps surprisingly though, honourary is not a correct spelling. Just to be sure, I checked it in the Oxford English Dictionary and only honorary is mentioned.

Cheers, CmdrObot 19:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in Canada (the article in question is a Canadian school board) we definitely have the word honourary, such as Honourary Professors, Honourary Patrons, Honourary Advisory Board, and Honourary Membership.

I see the word is in use in Australia as well, such as Honourary Life Memberships.

And this link would seem to indicate the word Honourary is in use in the UK.

Again, I repeat my request that your automoted bot recognize words like colour, neighbour, flavour, and honour -- including honourary -- as valid words not needing to be corrected. Though I don't have a dictionary with me at my desk, a quick check of the official Government of Canada web site brings up many references to the word honourary. --Stephane Charette 20:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd like to make it clear that I have never 'corrected' words like colour/color, flavor/flavour, neighbor/neighbour or honor/honour, so please don't make it sound like I have. I'm well aware that those are all correct spellings. I'm surprised that the OED doesn't list 'honourary' as an acceptable variant if it's in common use in Canada, although I guess it is possible that they're in error. In any event, I've now removed 'honourary' from my list of misspellings. Cheers, CmdrObot 20:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Stephane Charette 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hi there. I was just curious about A. Y. Jackson Secondary School (disambiguation), which was moved by you to this new location. Per convention, the redirect should probably go the other way in this case (see the example for Table on that document). If you don't object, I'll fix this to use the current convention.

Aside: the additional (disambiguation) is used only when there is one subject which overwhelmingly deserves to use the article page. For example, London versus London (disambiguation). In essence, use the simplest title possible. I hope this is useful. Mindmatrix 18:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

In this case, which school will you decide is the primary? There isn't one primary article. As for the naming, note that if you remove the " (disambiguation)" then you cannot use any of the normal disambiguation templates -- such as {{Redirect}} and {{Otheruses2}} -- which is why people have disambiguation pages called "... (disambiguation)", and which is mentionned as perfectly valid at WP:D:

A disambiguation page may be named after the general term ("Term XYZ"), or may have a title like "Term XYZ (disambiguation)".

--Stephane Charette 18:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for stepping forward and helping with the Project. For a while it was just me, I think. I'm glad we can work on our own sections, etc. I don't want to step on toes, and there's no need for a seperate project for Colleges & Universities. :-) Ardenn 19:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd also really value your input into the proposed structure for colleges and universities. It's a tough system to come up with, especially since many of our own articles don't follow the basic one. Ardenn 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

ImageNeeded, etc.

Ugh. I guess it's no worse than a {{wikify-date}} tag, but it's pretty ugly. --Usgnus 07:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

My Talk page

Please do not revert my talkpage. Feedyourfeet 18:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't selectively delete comments and warnings from your talk page! See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page and Template:Wr0 for additional information on selective editing of talk pages. --Stephane Charette 22:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to archive. Could you please back up this comment with a policy "you cannot selectively clear messages from your talk page" Thank you Feedyourfeet 04:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Lynch Law--a form of mob violence and putative justice Lynching Feedyourfeet 22:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, I looked but could not find the policy that says it must be linked to. Could you reply here with it. Thank you. Feedyourfeet 01:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where or what policy this would be. I just know how talk pages work on Wikipedia -- this is common sense to most of us. I am sorry I cannot provide you with any additional information. --Stephane Charette 01:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with user Eduardo Rivero

Who are you to tell me I'm not "His Imperial Majesty"?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eduardo89 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, the onus is on you to WP:CITE from verifiable sources.

(Note: I've renamed the topic from His Royal Highness Eduardo Salvador Diego Alonso Rivero Puente y Cortina von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha zu Leiningen.)

For the details on this person's quest to insert his name into a bunch of articles, see User talk:Eduardo89#You are not .22His Imperial Majesty.22.

--Stephane Charette 19:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, he's now blocked for one week. Hopefully he will get the message. -- Where 15:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

New Wikiproject!

Hi!

I wanted to invite you to join the new WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada. The goal is simple: to create and maintain high quality articles on Wikipedia related to Canadian politicians and Canadian political parties. Come on over and check us out at WP:PPAP. Ardenn 16:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. There are several holy war-type of articles from which I steer away from (when it comes to editing on Wikipedia):

1. Operating systems
2. Religion
3. Politics

Personally, I find it easier to work on articles where I'm not emotionally attached -- thus, the work I've done at WP:EiC. Thanks for letting me know about it, Ardenn. Hope it gets off the ground. --Stephane Charette 01:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Peel logo

Thanks for assuming good faith on my logo change. I tagged the one I uploaded for speedy deletion. --Usgnus 21:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for notifying me about that question. It's easy to overlook it when you're busy with other things. :) -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 22:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I was bored just now, so I made the "schoolhouse+flag" icons for all the provinces. :) Enjoy. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 00:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --Stephane Charette 00:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Breaks

Doh. I'll go further and convert the navbox to our standard. --Usgnus 18:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is only after I left you the first message that I noticed {{OCCSB}} wasn't using {{Navbox Education in Canada}}. My guess is the formatting problems will go away once it is converted to a proper navbox. BTW -- what do we do about all of the schools that seem to start with "St."? Do we convert it to "Saint", or should we revise the rule? --Stephane Charette 18:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should revise the rule. Go with Saint or St. (but not St) depending on how the school uses it. --Usgnus 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll bring it up at WT:EiC. --Stephane Charette 19:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Eduardo89

I don't know him at all, but I'll keep an eye out for him. Adam Bishop 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There's probably nothing we can do, since we can't block IPs for extended periods of time...just keep reverting him I guess, at least he's not doing it to hundreds of pages every second. Adam Bishop 20:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ceiling cat and EiC

Yeah, I thought about doing the same thing but it looks like it'd get deleted quickly if I did... :)

And thanks for notifying me about the "photos without articles" thing. I can't believe I missed that. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 17:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Toronto Photos

I can get most Toronto photos (but not GTA) if you're looking for them in general, feel free to drop me a line. I'll look into picking up the two you asked about on the Wikiproject Toronto. WilyD 18:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

WP Project Ottawa

Of course it interests me! I thought I was already in it... and I didn't know I wasn't the only teenager here who cares about wiki.. :) Thanks. --Deenoe 21:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Correction : I was listed in it under my old username (Yongblood). --Deenoe 21:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your dedication. --Deenoe 01:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Your accusations against A Man in Black

I recently was reading the Miscellany for Deletion page on Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments, and noted that you accused AMIB of an out-of-process deletion and bad faith in nominating that page itself for deletion. I would first direct you to your accusations of people in favor of deletions pointing to the delete section of it, and bring to your attention Silensor's comment at this AFD, in which Silensor displays exactly the conduct that AMIB explained in his nomination. Secondly, I noted that your comment is vastly accusatory of AMIB's actions in undertaking his duties, and would like to remind you of Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith policy, which you cite right at the top of your talk page. Incivility is no way to improve the quality of the project, and accusing other editors without providing evidence is something that I personally strongly discourage. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you go back and re-read my comment, which I will quote here in it's entirety:

• Keep. What I'm afraid of (as an active member of WP:EiC), is that now that ManInBlack has demonstrated that any of our school stub articles can easily be speedily deleted (as what he did with Bridge Elementary School today) without having to resort to Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete, is that by getting rid of Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep we've lost our voice and all our similar stubs will be speedily-deleted. This is not bad faith, I'm not blaming ManInBlack -- I'm just genuinely afraid that all the work we've put into the Education in Canada wikiproject over the past few months will instantly dissapear. This boils down to the same old argument about people's characters and views towards keep-and-improve versus deleting. --Stephane Charette 20:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Source: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. --Stephane Charette 18:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You additionally posted the following comment in response to him, which I find more pertinent to this issue than the previous one.

"You forgot to mention that just as many people use it to say "Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete". I find this interesting since you just speedily-deleted a Richmond BC school article today (Bridge Elementary School) without having to resort to the arguments in WP:SCHOOL. Deletion of WP:SCHOOL would just make further school article deletions that much easier to complete."

The tone and implied accusation toward AMIB is the primary comment that I take issue with. The one you mentioned is not as objectionable, and I can sympathize with your posting it. Nonetheless, the latter, instead of the former, is what I meant to bring to issue. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So which part of this is accusing other editors without providing evidence (your quote)?

1. This is the page where we are discussing deleting the page that discusses the KEEP and DELETE arguments for schools.
2. AMIB had just speedily deleted the school in question (the text you quoted wasn't wikilinked, but the original text was wikilinked) and 16 other school articles
3. AMIB was now proposing that we delete Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments, which I think will hurt people like me who rely on the KEEP arguments to try and hold on to the school stubs.
4. BTW, you have the order of the comments backwards -- the one you find objectionable preceedes the other, which is where I gave my explanation for my KEEP vote and where I explained that this wasn't about AMIB, this wasn't about "bad faith", but simply genuine concern that all of our work was being deleted. Remember that AMIB had just finished speedily deleting 17 school article, and had just posted an slightly inflamatory comment on WT:EiC with the edit summary "oh yeah", which I'll quote for you here:

Oooh, didn't even know about you guys. I also speedily deleted a ton of one-sentence "Foo Elementary School is a school in Foo, Bar{{navbox}}" microstubs that a new user prodded, for essentially the same reasoning. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

When you take a look at what was happening, I don't think my comment was out of line, nor did I accuse anyone of something without proof, nor was I incivil, and on top of which right in my comment I explained This is not bad faith, I'm not blaming ManInBlack -- I'm just genuinely afraid that all the work we've put into the Education in Canada wikiproject over the past few months will instantly dissapear. I think that leaves AMIB pretty much off-the-hook and my comment is appropriate for the discussion that was taking place. --Stephane Charette 19:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Kuzaar, as for this quote from you:

...and bring to your attention Silensor's comment at this AFD, in which Silensor displays exactly the conduct that AMIB explained in his nomination.

Please note:

1. I am not Silensor, if you have a problem with him/her, bring it to their attention
2. In my opinion, Silensor's comment is 100% legitimate. I will quote here:

Keep for reasons documented at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Normally we try to improve and expand articles rather than delete them. Silensor 18:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with this comment? This is exactly what the page is for -- it lists reasons for, and reasons against, keeping school articles. What is wrong with someone like myself or Silensor saying that they agree with the reasons for keeping the article? Are we not allowed to say that we agree with reasons for keeping things? --Stephane Charette 19:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

To address the first response you wrote, above, I now understand, and did not compare the dates of the two comments. However, even so, tossing about claims of abuse of administrator privilege is a serious matter that should not be overlooked simply because you disclaimed an accusation of bad faith- an administrator abusing privileges, if that is what you implied by the comment that I quoted, is, as I said, a serious allegation that should be handled through the appropriate venues and not by making claims on AFDs in which the administrator is taking part.

As to the second issue, my problem with the WP:SCHOOL article and its arguments to keep/delete is really a broader issue than this archived article itself. That people on both sides of the conflict, both those in favor of wider inclusion, and those in favor of stronger standards, are using this article as if the arguments had been accepted by consensus. However, I think that this issue is only symptomatic of a larger problem that needs to be addressed- namely, that people are holding their positions in the opinion that they are right and others are wrong, instead of contributing positively and trying to come up with a compromise. I myself will admit that heretofore I have been guilty of this exact behavior, and in reflecting I can see that it and behaviors like it are harmful to the project. What we need is a way for everyone to gain consensus on the subject (the German Userbox solution comes to mind in a general sense and theme, though the details of it are mostly irrelevant to this conundrum). I would like to take part, I think, in some way to bring the two seemingly-irreconcilable sides together, but I'll be blasted if I can think of a way to do it that would be acceptable to both sides. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 19:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, it was AMIB himself who admitted he was abusing his administrative priveleges by deleting the School essay. That's all I need to say. Silensor 03:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Terribly sorry to clutter up your talk page, Stephane, but I felt I needed to respond to Silensor here. I think that after seeing users cite on AFDs "Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep", he felt that that substantively added nothing to the discussion regarding concerns of either side and felt that it was being used as a placeholder for anything of value. Thus, being bold, he did what he saw fit to remove that "conversation placeholder" from the discussion. If you read my above comments, you will see that I agree insofar as users lazily avoiding discussion and not working toward consensus, which is itself divisive- both sides are guilty of preferring instead to stack up their votes at AFD and see whose side is bigger. This runs counter to the spirit of the project, and the past week I have been trying harder and harder to make a difference in people's opinions. Sometimes I am concerned, however, that even this won't make a difference and people will continue, instead of trying to work together, to factionalize and compare faction size. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 13:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A thought from Wikipedia talk:Schools you made that troubled me

as a member of WP:EiC I would see our activities severely restricted on Wikipedia if this proposal is accepted.

What activities would those be? This worries me, either that there's been a miscommunication or that this entire proposal is misguided.

Ideally, I want to require at the least...

“ Foo Elementary School is a school in Foo, Bar. Jimbo Wales describes how it formed his outlook on life in the book Pod of Wales. ”

or

“ Foo High School is a school in Foo, Bar. It was involved in a local scandal when nearly half of its classes were cancelled and condensed when the schol district ran out of money, due to embezzlement.[8] ”

or something along those lines; just some sort of seed to turn the article into something other than a demographic stub.

It explicitly discourages:

“ Foo Middle School is a school in Foo, Bar. It has 3125 students and classes in English, Math, and Basketweaving. ”

if there's no kernal to grow into a complete article. That doesn't give any more material to expand the article into an encyclopedic article than the title and Whatlinkshere does.

I have two separate questions for you:

Do you feel that this proposal does a bad job of implementing the desire I stated above? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

and... Do you feel that this proposal is essentially misguided? If so, why? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops)

I believe that proposal in the current state will prevent 99% of school articles. You cannot merge into a well-written school district article all of the schools that exist. Case in point, please see these 2 school districts articles I've (re-)written, both of which *I* personally still consider to be stubs:

1. Toronto District School Board (herein called TDSB)
2. Peel District School Board (herein called PDSB)

Now, my comments on both of these:

1. TDSB is sourced (and you'll note almost every sentence and infobox line item is referenced) from primarily 2 places which your proposal says wouldn't be acceptable:
   1. the school board itself
   2. the Ontario government's Minstry of Education web site, which is a "list" that I tried to argue on the project's page should be legitimate -- you immdiately reverted my edits and cancelled my argument on the talk page somehow linking what I was doing to copying info from them just makes directories here on Wikipedia and pointing out WP:NOT as if that would explain everything
2. TDSB has over 500 schools -- which I've been trying to figure out what to do about, since:
   1. editors had started listing them and wikilinking to them in half-hazzard manner on the TDSB article page
   2. editors have now started a categories for this school board, which goes against the guidelines at WP:EiC and goes against the general wikipedia guideline as to how many articles should be in a category
3. PDSB was a different attempt at doing a school district article, and came about directly from comments that well-meaning editors on various AfD seem to always suggest that "merging" school into the school board is somehow a workable solution
4. I think you'll agree with me that while I've seriously cleaned up this article compared to how it was, and again sourced from places which your proposal seems to indicate is invalid, the final product is readable but definitely not a great solution for Wikipedia

As for the proposal itself and how I think it limits the work that we do -- and in fact almost invalidates some of the work that we do -- , please consider this random example taken from the past week or so:

1. Here is a stub that came to my attention: Delhi Public School, the previous stub
2. Here is the stub after I toyed with it to try and recover something usable: Delhi Public School, the new stub

Note that I still call it a stub, and it still has the stub text and icon at the bottom. But the point is that through WP:EiC, we're trying to standardize the look and content of these school stubs that people create. However, if I hold this stub against the proposal you have, it fails to pass criteria 1 through 5. And this is a typical stub article...meaning that of the 700 or so articles that we have as part of WP:EiC, I'm guessing that somewhere between 500 and 600 are probably still in "stub" state right now. And because of that, we'd lose all of these articles. That is why, from my point of view, your current proposal will either fail, be un-enforceable, or cause a *lot* of grief for many people when all of our (our=wikipedia, not just EiC) school articles get deleted or we get told to merge.

I think the proposal is misguided only because the content of the proposal itself came from 1 or 2 people whose views are definitely against school articles, and that those people (like yourself) have not participated in the many discussion (WT:EiC) over the past year to figure out how to structure and write school articles. Now that people like myself are coming over to your proposal and telling you what works and what we'd like to see, you revert changes and argue against what we've tried & demonstrated works (see examples above). It really feels like the intent is to push this proposal through keeping it exactly the way it was originally written, tweaking just sentences for grammer and adding a summarization template to the top. If I am prevented from adding or altering the parts of the proposal that I think are a problem, then there isn't much else I can contribute to your proposal! --Stephane Charette 09:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against school articles, I'm against unexpandable stubs. I want to protect school articles, as well as any stub that offers the bare minimum needed to turn that stub into an article. I think you're going to find that many school "deletionists" feel similarly; it's not the articles or the expandable stubs, but the blatant directory entries that are objectionable.

This proposal doesn't describe directories as invalid sources for information, but it does require that a stub show some sources other than directories (which, like phone books, are going to cover every single set of four walls with a student in it).

In the case of Delhi Public School (Ontario), this proposal is aimed at triage for this and other stubs like it; the Delhi stub is almost completely a copy of the GEDSB directory, and contains no info not better suited to a properly searchable database. However, when you add something like this, it passes the proposal (or, if it doesn't, it's only because I did a bad job of writing the proposal originally). That's non-trivial coverage from a reliable source, and that took me 15 minutes to find and that's only because I don't know a thing about Delhi, Ontario (so I had to search for the local paper and the local TV affiliate) and because the school had an exceptionally generic name.

I'd be happy to offer any ideas I can on how to dispose of directory-entry stubs like this, but if they aren't being disposed of, then this proposal has no purpose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

They don't need to be disposed of. They are stubs, just like any other stubs on Wikipedia. Let them grow into full-blown articles. I think this is what is wrong with the current proposal. The premise of the guidelines is to set the bar so high that all of the stubs would get deleted or moved out of article space. As long as this continues to be the goal of the proposal, and you and various other people revert or refuse to accept input from people who are actually working on school articles, then there isn't anything else we can do. Take a look at the conflict this causes, and how divided the views are between people who work on schools and people who haven't worked on school articles: these two comments are side-by-side on the proposal's talk page:

• I don't see the intention as limiting the articles contributed on schools. JzG
• I can't help see this guideline as an attempt to limit the inclusions of schools in Wikipedia Wakemp

Obviously -- to me anyway -- there is something very wrong with the proposal when people cannot even agree on the effects or the intention of the proposal! If the proposal was neutral in it's intent, then people wouldn't be so polarized. --Stephane Charette 18:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The intention is to focus the effort on expanding these stubs, instead of making them. They're directory entries, failing WP:NOT. This is an extremely low bar; someone just has to find some independent coverage that isn't duplicated from a directory entry. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So if adding a single small fact to a stub -- even the fact that the school has recently purchased a jungle gym like you did to the example article above -- is all that matters, state exactly that in the proposal! The proposed guideline would be very much simplified, down to just a single paragraph, and I'm certain you'll get a lot more people agreeing to it than the situation you have now.

Note that I still think you say one thing, and do something else: the proposal you posted had strict wording about how the facts had to be non-trivial in nature, how they had to be verifiable on a national level, and how the facts had to be more than of local interest...yet the sentence you added to the stub I had fixed up was that the school purchased a jungle gym in July. Personally, I'd have thought your proposal would have resulted in Delhi Public School (Ontario) to still not pass any of the proposed 5 criterias. Which is why people are still arguing on the talk page that the this proposal would prevent the creation of school stub articles, and thus limit how we contribute to Wikipedia. --Stephane Charette 23:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The coverage has to be non-trivial. The linked story is a story about the school. This is as opposed to an offhand mention in a story about something else, or a single entry in a directory of hundreds.

I never said the facts have to be of more than local interest or verifiable "on a national level" (what does that mean?), there just needs to be non-trivial coverage of the school in an independent, reliable source. By emphasizing this, the duplication of directories can stop. This doesn't really worry about what covered facts are trivial or not; we're leaving it to outside sources instead of performing an original evaluation about what facts are important or not. Purely demographic info isn't not important, it's just that purely demographic info with no effort made to offer anything else is contrary to Wikipedia's mission.

If the proposal is preventing the creation of stubs like the one after that addition of that non-trivial coverage in a reliable source, then the proposal is badly worded. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Schule Schloss Salem

You reverted my edit on that page for some reason....I've undone your edit so, if you have a problem with mine let me know on my talk page. Thanks

-=Wykdron=-

You obviously know why, because when you re-did your edits you got rid of the problem in your edits -- adding Eduardo's name to articles. See the talk page at Talk:Schule Schloss Salem or User talk:Eduardo89. --Stephane Charette 20:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually look at the article i took that out...

--Wykydron 20:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)-=Wykdron=-

LOOK AT THE ARTICLE I EDITED!! FOR GOD'S SAKE I DIDNT ADD EDUARDO RIVERO TO IT.

Have a nice day --Wykydron 20:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You took it out only after I reverted the whole block of edits. See the article's talk page. --Stephane Charette 20:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Eduardo incarnated

Thanks for telling me :). I blocked the new account. -- Where 22:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah in that case the account can be blocked indefinitely. Whenever something like this happens you might want to take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Adam Bishop 23:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, to both of you. I'll post it on the Incidents noticeboard next time. --Stephane Charette 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: misterjerk - new helper

Thanks for the information on my talk page. I'll try to use the template and add the associated school board for John Rennie High School. I haven't had a look at the discussion concerning the "revamping"/deletion yes but I will take your advice and start working on the school boards until there is some resolution regarding the individual schools. Meanwhile I have taken my first picture and updated the site for MSVU. Unfortunately I didn't choose a good "destination filename" and I can't seem to change it, any suggestions? I plan to take some more pictures of local schools as I have time and update the relevant pages/categories. Misterjerk2 13:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Stubsense

It's not very accurate, but give you a general idea of the stubs in a category: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/stub_sense

Stubs

FYI, procedure is to wait a week after proposing a new stub. And it should be {{Canada-bridge-struct-stub}}. --Usgnus 07:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought after several support votes that it would be OK to start. As for the naming of the template, I named it the same as the category. When I proposed the category be named "Canada ..." it was mentionned it should be "Canadian", at which point in time I ammended the proposal. So why should the category be named "Canadian" but the corresponding template be named "Canada"? --Stéphane Charette 07:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That's just the convention: {{Canada-airport-stub}}/Category:Canadian airport stubs, {{Canada-actor-stub}}/Category:Canadian actor stubs, etc. But not all follow the convention, so it's not a big deal. --Usgnus 18:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I finished sorting the remaining stubs. There are 75 total right now. There's a bunch of articles that I think should be tagged as stubs, but I left them alone (for now). --Usgnus 19:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• For the US bridges, there's some question as to whether they should be sorted even further, perhaps by region (northeast, southeast, southwest, northwest). I think that's why it hasn't been sorted yet.
• I went through all the articles by province in Category:Bridges in Canada, just skipping the non-stubs.
• I use either Safari or Firefox. --Usgnus 23:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Universities

No problem...I definitely got most of them, but I'm not 100% sure that I got them all, and I haven't actually edited List of universities in Quebec at all. I also posted to dude's talk page to advise him both about the actual naming convention and the fact that he can't move articles by cutting and pasting. This whole thing was really absurd, wasn't it? Did he actually think this wasn't the kind of thing he should have raised for discussion first? Bearcat 09:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comment at User talk:Bearcat: Actually, no. A few Canadians, mostly French-Canadians on an obscure discussion page they created is not Wikipedia policy or proper procedure. However, I will present this in the prescribed manner so that one way or the other they is a factual policy reference in existence. And, just for the record, Université de Montréal gets 18.2 million Google hits but the "University of Montreal" gets 56.7 million hits. - Lionel GM 20:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to check your facts. Searching for "université de montréal"[9] (remember the quotes when searching!) gives 7,460,000 hits on Google, and searching for "university of montreal"[10] gives 1,280,000 hits on Google. Without the quotes, your search for university would match New York University, University of Hard Knocks, etc... As for the "obscure" page you refer to, I wouldn't exactly call WP:EiC obscure, nor would that term apply to Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion which is where this topic is being discussed. I suggest you come meet people where the topic is discussed. Your first stop before moving dozens of Quebec university and university-related pages should have been to come to Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Canada -- linked to from the top of the university article talk pages -- to come let us know of your plan to move all these pages. This would have quickly identified the problem with your plans, instead of forcing many wikipedia editors to pick up the pieces you left lying around. --Stéphane Charette 21:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to enlarge upon my thinking for the benefit of Bearcat at User talk:Bearcat (Wikipedia Policy - naming convention). Thanks. - Lionel GM 23:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

CEPEO

I really dont get it... Cause I'm not really good in English. If you want to explain it to me in French (your name seems french to me) so I sent you my Email on Wiki Mail :) --Deenoe 18:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way... The school in the CEPEO starts Tuesday :) (Woohooooooooooooo.) --Deenoe 18:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Tu te débrouilles bien pareil! 15 ans, je le crois pas :p Mais bon, maintenant je te comprendset je m'y lance. --Deenoe 20:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So.. I'm done the CEPEO Template (Go Check it out! Template:CÉPEOSchools and tell me if I did everything right..) Now I will go to the CECLFCE Schools and I'll re-write the CÉPEO and CECLFCE articles --Deenoe 20:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

CSDCSO

Hey Stéphane,

the CSDCSO article you've created a while back is now seeing a bit of a content/revert war over (as I understand it) fairness or lack thereof of its funding. Apparently tempers are flaring a bit between two new users. I'll try to step in and mediate this a bit, but if you have a bit of time, could you get involved as well? Thanks. --Qviri (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Salut Stéphane, l'article est actuellement vandalisé en permanence par un activiste qui semble plus proche des groupuscules comme "Alliance Preservation of English". Merci - Miquelon

RfAR

I don't fully understand what it is that you, GST2006 and Miquelon are arguing about, so I cannot devote the time needed for an ArbCom case. You seem a worthy Wikipedian: would you mind filing it? Dev920 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You are starting with your habitual Stalkng and Attacking editors

You have a history of being banned for stalking. You earlier apoligized for making personal attacks and now are harrasing me with graffiti and slandar on my talk page. You seem to be interested in Education Articles and Schooll Boards. I hope you are not a representative of Public Education since this would show very little integrity for a public servant.--GST2006 05:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiWoo, aka GST2006, you have been banned from Wikipedia (see here). I have no such history of being banned for stalking, unless you mean the incident where User:SirIsaacBrock tried to accuse me earlier in 2006, and subsequently got himself permenantly banned from Wikipedia for his disruptive behaviour. (Well-documented in my archive.) Anyone can quickly do a Google search on my name and easily determine who I am, who I work for, and thus also determine that I am not a public servant nor affiliated in any way, shape, or form with any school board on this planet. You, on the other hand, especially as GST2006, User:WikiWoo, User:WikiRoo, and User:WikiDoo, have a history of accusing people of being corrupt city officials or corrupt school board officials. I suggest you take your non-neutral POV elsewhere. --Stéphane Charette 07:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Stéphane, I appreciate that you're upset about the whole situation, but it's better to keep cool and let the process go on. Checkuser cases aren't always quickly dealt with, so I'd recommend disengaging somewhat with this user for the moment while the process goes on. Being combative often causes problems to continue for longer periods than they really need to. Tony Fox (arf!) 08:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• I made good contributions on the Article in question. We have exchanged edits and had discussions and changes where made to the Article when necessary based on the strength of the discusions. When you had no case against the contributions you when on a band wagon of attacks and accusations trying to have me banned as your way of dealing with proper edits and content that you dislike. I appreciate you are a Francaphone Canadian and the issues of laguage rights in Ontario are controversial. They wave been controversial for hundreds of years. These facts also make them notable and should be reflected in Wiki content. Wiki should reflect truth and reality. There are always cause and effect with anything. Anyone reading you contributions dealing with this article and me will see that you are the instigator of the conflict. I am only trying to contribute in a cooperative manner. You are not and simply try to have things your way using everything but proper reasoned discussions and compromise.--GST2006 14:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WikiWoo and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WikiWoo. --Stéphane Charette 18:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiWoo (talk · contribs) aka GST2006 (talk · contribs)

Dear Stéphane

I have prepared a request for check user on Brampton 2006 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), whom I strongly suspect is a sockpuppet of WikiWoo (whom I believe you dealt with in his incarnation as GST2006), at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WikiWoo. Since you filed the last RFCU on a WW sockpuppet, I thought I would give you a heads-up. Cheers, JChap2007 07:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Okanagan Lake

Thanks for restoring the commons link on the Okanagan Lake article. I must not have been paying close attention when I was cleaning up linkspam that day. Cheers! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 15:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for that little change on my talk page! I was trying earlier to move it down, but it didn't work. Thanks! :) lovelaughterlife♥ (user|talk) 04:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Regional District of Central Okanagan, British Columbia Bugulumbya Secondary School Okanagan College Rattlesnake Island (Lake Erie) Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako, British Columbia Perris Union High School District ACÉPO Northern Rockies Regional District, British Columbia Regional District of East Kootenay, British Columbia Conseil des écoles publiques de l'Est de l'Ontario Wood Lake (British Columbia) Regional District of Central Kootenay, British Columbia Spuzzum, British Columbia The Student School Conseil scolaire de district catholique du Nouvel-Ontario Cariboo Adarsh Shiksha Niketan School Rainbow District School Board Cabot Trail

Cleanup Wauwatosa West High School Kensington Community High School Urban renewal Merge University of Calgary Polyphonic ringtone Prince Albert, Saskatchewan Add Sources Suspension (school punishment) Parsons 168 Crest Ridge R-VII Wikify Holy Cross Convent School Wilfrid Laurier University Kelston Boys' High School Expand Royal Botanical Gardens, Ontario Loon Post-Soviet states

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting pages: right to vanish

For future reference, in regards to the right to vanish and having user and user talk pages deleted using {{db-userreq}} (from User talk:Wakemp and User talk:Wakemp/Archive01):

See: m:Right to vanish.

Also see: Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages?

Also see: Jimbo's comment.

--Stéphane Charette 06:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Concern

Hi, i m writing this concerning the authenticity of this article. (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/A._Y._Jackson_Secondary_School_%28Toronto%29)

I highly doubt the statement "95% of the school's population is Chinese." As being a graduate from this school, I believe this statement is false. To whom posted this information, could you please ask him/her to list a reference to this? or else this is considered vandalism, isnt it? People have been posting false information for the past, and this is dishonoring my school's reputation so please limit the editting of this article. Thank you very much.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.102.163.126 (talk • contribs) .

Education in Canada infobox - Student Council

Please note that I have responded to your comments here. --216.13.78.165 03:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Popups and reverting

Popups and any reverting that does not give an explanation are only to be used for vandalism, reverts of which do not require an explanation. —Centrx→talk • 01:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll note I had left detailed explanation on the talk page. --Stéphane Charette 01:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Then it makes sense to say "See talk". —Centrx→talk • 01:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Popups aren't illegal to use. If you saw your changes were reverted (first by someone else, then by myself) then you have the page under watch. If you have the page under watch, you saw the comments I added to the talk page. You have no need to make it seem like I was the one who did something wrong. I suggest, if you have a problem with the template we use for WP:EiC, that you take it up on WT:EiC or Template talk:Infobox Education in Canada. --Stéphane Charette 01:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries are for explaining a change. Popups, reverting, rollback, etc. do not have explanatory edit summaries, and are for situations where an edit summary is not necessary, such as vandalism, spam, etc. Changes in content or disputes over content warrant a specific edit summary. —Centrx→talk • 02:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Cnd. School Infoxbox

Hi, I hadn't realized that...check my comments in the correct page Epson291 05:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)