User talk:Dahliarose

Archives

User talk:Dahliarose/Archive 1 - 2006-2008

Archives

User talk:Dahliarose/Archive 2 - 2009-2011

Archives

User talk:Dahliarose/Archive 3 - 2012 January-March

The link you added to Riverdale High School, (riverdalekolkata) is for a school in Aurangabad, not in Kolkata. As I have found, there are many "Riverdale High Schools" peppered around India. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you are well aware, the {{merge school}} template is not part of WP:MERGE. It is part of WP:AfD. The wording on the template indicates that. The AfD consensus is that primary/elementary schools are not inherently notable and that a merge to a locality article is a viable alternative to a delete. If you believe that this is incorrect then please talk the discussion to WT:SCHOOLS, or some other community discussion venue and try and get agreement to an alternative. Detagging articles is not the best route. Fmph (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to intrude into this discussion but though the commentary above is generally correct, when an article has been through AfD and determined to be notable, it is usually wrong to then merge tag the page without talk page agreement. TerriersFan (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TerriersFan. I didn't realise that. Interestingly most of these merge tags relate to prep schools. The notability guidelines only cover primary schools and elementary schools. Prep schools are of course somewhat different. Most of them tend to be quite old and are set in historic buildings. There are usually plenty of references to write a good standalone article. Dahliarose (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What notability guidelines relating to primary and elementary schools? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the school merge tag linked above it takes you through to three notability guidelines. Primary schools, elementary schools and middle schools are all mentioned but not prep schools. Prep schools can cover ten years of education from the three to 13 so they are somewhat different from these other types of school. They also tend to have long histories and have lots of notable alumni. Dahliarose (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only point where it mentions primary/elementary schools is WP:OUTCOMES, which is not a policy or even a guideline, just an observation of how AfD tends to resolve. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is mention of primary and elementary schools in the School Article Guidelines WP:WPSCH/AG. I think this needs clarifying because it doesn't reflect actual practice. Articles on historic primary schools are normally kept. I can't remember seeing many prep schools coming up for AfD but the ones I've seen have all been kept. I suspect there are some that have been merged or redirected in the recent campaign but they will no doubt get reinstated in time. That's not to say that all of them will necessarily merit an article. Dahliarose (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but WP:WPSCH/AG says roughly the same thing as WP:OUTCOMES, that AfD's and other discussions tend to resolve this way for primary and elementary schools.

You know my position, I think all of this crusade is disruptive, particularly for schools that have demonstrated notability. I don't think differentiating between prep and elem./prim. schools is all that useful. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is disruptive when editors take these actions based purely on the type of school without having any regard for the content of the article or making any attempt to look for references. I also think that slapping all these tags on articles is very discouraging for newbie editors, and it frightens people away from Wikipedia. Dahliarose (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your post at WT:WPSCH/AG. Hah! It's good to know you and I can disagree sometimes. :) ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may as well join in here as anywhere. The talk page of the original drive by tagger appears to demonstrate a certain disruptive tendency. Others seem to have joined the party in good faith. What I see with the various prep school articles is a set of half decent articles with poor referencing. I believe the strategy here should be a global one. They need references, good ones. Many of these are evil to find. Prep schools appear to be appalling at getting local press coverage, let alone national. But there will be archive material in print media. I've had a go at a few. but there's a career here! The objective is to get enough material to create a well referenced "at least stub" article, and that will safeguard the articles against the merging contingent. Engage with them wherever they appear and oppose and decline merges, though. Pick four articles and have a go at them, and ask others to do the same. Thus 'we' have an informal task force and it benefits Wikipedia by creating better articles. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your hard work on these articles. You're a real breath of fresh air! That's exactly my perception of the problem too. I wish there were more editors like you who actively help to reference and improve articles. I'll do what I can when I have a chance. A lot of these articles really need local editors with access to the local offline sources. Contrary to what some editors seem to think, not all reliable sources are found online. Dahliarose (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's what we're all meant to do, its just a lot easier to tag something than to do something. It was a bit of a fight to find things. Google's book search was useful, and so was search for strings like "educated at [schoolname]" to find alumni. Then it was natural to add missing categories like People educated at [schoolname] and add the alumni to those categories. This set of schools are appalling at getting press coverage, so we have to rely on local press and alumni. I admit I only played with the schools that caught my attention. There are loads of others that were tagged, too. You;d think they would have some alumni here who are interested, wouldn't you? Obviously they are far too important in their real lives :)

Anyway, together we have improved a little corner of Wikipedia. 08:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Fiddle Faddle (talk)

It's surprising that the schools and their alumni aren't making more effort to improve their own articles. It can be fun working on articles that you know nothing about and digging out obscure sources. Make the most of your local library ticket too as that gives you access to all sorts of wonderful online databases. Dahliarose (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that most schools are inept at this sort of stuff. And alumni of the grade of school we've been playing with here tend to want to forget their time there! I admit to only to being able to remember two of the four houses at the one I went to. Many of the school things at that stage are also hugely amusing(!) anecdotes, such as the geography mistress who taught us about The Chilternens (sic) and had a voice like a sistrum. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, though a lot these schools have many long-deceased alumni who would be interesting to research. Unfortunately Wikipedia is plagued with WP:Recentism so all sorts of mediocre celebrities have articles and people who really did have interesting lives don't have articles because the sources aren't accessible online. Dahliarose (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an amusing social experiment. The alleged Wisdom of Crowds proves itself over and ver again to be Lowest Common Denominator of those who choose to engage on a topic. But it makes a decent hobby, like stamp collecting. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlia, good work - I know we've had our disagreements in the past but I do think your recent changes to school-article policy has brought some much-needed improvement. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It was only a very minor change of a small section!

Hi. I noticed you undid my redirecting of this unreferenced article on a non-notable primary school, with an assertion in your edit summary that it is a "historical school". I am interested in where you derive the information that it is a historical school. There isn't any evidence for this in the article or on the school's own site. If you do have a source it would be great if you could add it to the article, because it might then be worth keeping. --John (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this also applies to Skene Square Primary School. Please think about what you are doing; WP:V and WP:N are paramount here. --John (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've mass redirected a lot school articles. The run-of-the mill primary schools are not a problem as it will not be possible to write an encyclopaedic article on these schools. Schools that were founded back in the nineteenth century are a different matter. They were not founded as primary schools, and with over a hundred years of history sources will exist to write encyclopaedic articles to satisfy WP:V. It takes time to find sources, but I'll see what I can do when I have the chance. Perhaps you can help too. Also, I've noticed that the target of your redirects is often illogical. The normal practice is to redirect to the town or the village. For some of these articles you've redirected the page to the secondary school or to the county. Dahliarose (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, "mass redirected" sounds like an automated process. I have redirected around a dozen really poor unreferenced articles with no claim of notability, as per our guidelines, after a search for sources showed there are no obvious sources from which a decent article could ever be written. Where the secondary school the school is a feeder for is apparent I have redirected there. With high schools there is at least a better chances that sources can be found. Thank you for any work you can do in finding sources for these; I will be happy if these can be found. If not, these will have to be redirected again. I will tag them for notability meanwhile. --John (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've redirected all these articles in very quick succession which is the main reason for my concern. This suggests that you haven't spent any time looking to see what sources exist. It takes me at least half an hour to have a good search for sources. In my experience sources can usually be found for any school that is over a hundred years old. 'Notability' depends entirely on the availability of sources and is not dependent on the type of school. I'm not familiar with the Scottish school system but with English schools children from primary schools go to multiple secondary schools and not necessarily the school for which their primary school is the feeder. It is more logical to have the primary school article directed to the village or town, which is the normal practice. Dahliarose (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you reverted my redirecting of this article. As ever, I trust this means you will take responsibility for providing adequate sourcing so that it meets WP:V. At the moment it does not. --John (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) John, a fully unreferenced page can completely meet the requirements of WP:V and WP:NOR. If you go read those policies, you will find that they repeatedly say things like "it must be possible to cite a source", not "somebody must have cited sources by some arbitrary deadline".

I also hope that the article willbe expanded and sourced, but, as far as I can tell, this article actually meets the real minimum requirements in its current zero-citation state. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, I've now looked at this article and sorted it out. I originally reverted your redirect because the school was founded in 1845 and had a number of very important alumni and famous teachers. I know from experience that it is normally possible to find sources to improve such articles. If you'd taken the time to read the article before redirecting it to Helensburgh, you would have seen that the school merged with Lomond School. I have now added the content from the Larchfield Academy article to the Lomond School article, and redirected the Larchfield Academy page to Lomond School. Could I suggest that in future you spend a little more time reading articles before tagging them or redirecting them. Dahliarose (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dahliarose.

I will not put up with much more of your reverting every case of tagging non-notable junior school articles for merging or unmerging articles which have been merged through due process. Please familiarise yourself with WP:GNG. Also please look up WP:Civility. Before removing tags you should be aware that there is no policy requirement to add a merge rationale when tagging, only a preference. Pages which are clearly non-notable can be boldly merged without tagging at all.

What concerns me more than this is that a good faith editor, Fmph, seems to have been driven away from the project by your aggressive behaviour. This is the last thing we need when we are working hard to improve editor retention. I hope I will not need to raise these matters at the administrators noticeboard.--Charles (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) If someone with Dahlia's experience disagrees with your decision that a given school is non-notable, then it's not "clearly non-notable", is it? That sounds rather like "unclear notability" to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Dahliarose has restored at least one school with no references at all and only come up with an ofsted report. Nothing else. That is obviously non-notable.--Charles (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you check my editing history you will see that I have considerable experience assessing school articles, editing school articles, adding content and providing citations. I know from experience that it is almost always possible to provide sufficient content and references to bring these articles up to the required standard. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress and it takes time to do this work. It is understandable that two editors can sometimes disagree about whether or not an article is notable but I would hope that you could at least assume good faith and appreciate that if I undo one of your redirects I have good reason for doing so. If we disagree surely the solution should be to discuss the matter civilly on the respective talk pages as I have been trying to do. Like you, I am also concerned about editor retention. I prefer to lead by example by showing people how to work on articles and how to add references. Drive by tagging and redirecting potentially notable articles is what discourages editors. If an article is not referenced why don't you have a go at looking for sources yourself and expanding the article rather than immediately reverting the good faith editors of another editor. Dahliarose (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me the words "I will not put up with" and "Bullshit" appear to be hostile. That is not the best way to win a discussion. It sounds like the start of a declaration of war, and sufficient to warrant a report, should Dahliarose wish to make it, to those who consider the behaviour of users here. Perhaps those words should be withdrawn and the apparent hostile manner be apologised for. Ah yes, and the incessant tagging of these articles should cease, too :). Improving the articles is the right road, not destroying them. Please alter your approach. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: that's a hostile response, and it's strange to have Charles responding this way after he's been preaching to Dahlia about her need to read the civility policy. Profanity isn't ever civil.

Charles, Dahlia disagrees with you about the notability. When two experienced editors disagree about the notability of a subject, then the notability is unclear. We have multiple processes for resolving unclear notability, including WP:AFD and WP:PM. Cussing on someone's talk page, however, isn't one of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested to Charles on his talk page that he takes a step back from these articles and makes amends here. Today, since I have seen no response nor acknowledgement, I have made a further suggestion Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N"If someone with Dahlia's experience disagrees with your decision that a given school is non-notable, then it's not "clearly non-notable", is it?"

I have never met or spoken with Dahlia but I'm sure she is quite lovely, however, until there is widespread consensus that her decree is policy, it's better not to make such nonsense statements which are clear ownership, as they create nothing but friction between editors. Penyulap ☏ 13:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Sorry, but calling that a statement of ownership is over the top. If the quote said "If someone with Dahlia's experience disagrees with your decision that a given school is non-notable, then it's not "non-notable", is it?" I might agree with you, but that's not what it says. The use of the word "clearly" changes the meaning completely, or to put it another way it might be non-notable it just isn't blatantly/obviously/without dissent non-notable. CT Cooper · talk 13:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to own any article or issue any decree. Every editor on Wikipedia is entitled to his or her own opinion. Anyone is quite entitled to remove a merge tag or restore an article that has been redirected by another editor. Dahliarose (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...School articles that have been proposed to be merged or AfD listed that we ned to do work on to save after the spate of drive by tagging? I don't have a huge amount of time, but I'll do what little I can. I get quite annoyed at folk who like to tag for anything other than improvement and then insist that they are right to do so.

That doesn't mean I don;t propose articles to be deleted myself. Sometimes that is the only way to improve Wikipedia. But I tend to think abouyt whether it is an article to invest time in first.

I'm happy to work though a list as well as I can of someone would create one and tell me where it is. Not all of these schools will be truly notable, though. I'll prioritise my efforts to those with potential for removing the tags sensibly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

School AfDs are listed here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools. I've reverted a number of redirects and removed merge tags from articles that had potential, usually where the school is particularly old or has important alumni. In these cases I've found that, given time, it's invariably possible to source the articles to the required standard. There seem to be a lot of editors at the moment who are tagging and redirecting articles without even reading them. They seem to assume that all primary/prep schools are automatically non-notable regardless of the content which is not at all the case. If you have time here are three potentially interesting ones Lomond School, Arbirlot Primary School and York House School (Redheath). I've just reverted this redirect for the second time: Brambletye School. The article at least merits further investigation. There are plenty more but I'm sure that will do for now. I'm not going to have time to do much in the next couple weeks other than damage limitation! Dahliarose (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article alerts should list any that have been tagged for the project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link. I hadn't realised that existed. I've been watching Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Schools articles by quality log which alerts me to articles that have been re-assessed or renamed. Dahliarose (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had an idea about the redirect problem:

MZMcBride made a list for me a couple of years ago of all {{WPMED}}-tagged articles that are redirects. (WP:MED doesn't normally tag redirects, except for a small number of alternate names that have been categorized.) Why couldn't someone set up a bot that makes a list of WikiProject Schools pages, checks for which ones are redirects, and then every day posts changes to the list (pages either becoming redirects or stopping being redirects)? I think the code for the first half is on one of my user subpages, and the second half shouldn't be too complicated, since I think that several bots use a method like that already. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting suggestion but I fear that with school articles there will be too many redirects for such a list to be of practical use. The usual practice for schools that come up at AfD is that they get redirected rather than deleted. There must be literally thousands of American elementary and middle schools that have now been redirected, and I suspect nearly all of these won't merit a standalone article, but I'll leave these to other editors to decide. The UK schools are somewhat different because they have a much longer history. An old building that is now a primary school would in the past have been the school that served the entire town or village and educated all children up to the school-leaving age. Now that the problem has been identified I can monitor changes through the school log, which I was watching but hadn't been following too closely in the past. It should be possible to check lists of schools and nav boxes to identify other articles that have been wrongly redirected, but there's a lot of work to be done already on the ones that have already been reverted or had the merge tags removed. Dahliarose (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just found in about 45 minutes sufficient references to Brambletye School. having reverted the redirect one more time. It seems that the uncompromising glare of the drive by taggers is forever to be pointed at such articles. I may not get the chance to look at the others today. I have a life off wikipedia. Others might pick these up, though? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. The school looks as though it has the potential to be notable, especially with some of the high-calibre alumni you've found such as Benedict Cumberbatch, which will probably mean the school has had more attention than most. I'll do what I can when I have more time, but deadlines in real life have to take precedence! Dahliarose (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list of woefully inadequate articles on schools capable of having references found is enormous. I just found Papplewick School while I was wandering around and did some spadework there, too. These schools a rotten at gaining press coverage in the main. Weirdly some even employ PR agencies. I woder what for! Had a minor crack at Lomond, too. I tend to pick up those that interest me in some way when I visit the article. Often it's because the article is so very bad. I can't help wondering why folk tag instead of find things. Then I remember why I do it from time to time. It;s to persuade others to get off their backsides and do something. Sometimes it even works. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same for huge numbers of other articles but on the other hand we have all sorts of articles on trivial subjects and minor celebrities who've appeared briefly on talent shows. It can be fun working on a subject you're not familiar with and uncovering all sorts of interesting facts. It's just a pity that more editors aren't involved in doing this sort of spadework. Dahliarose (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The alleged wisdom of crowds is really the lowest common denominator. Wikipedia is an amusing social experiment. I love the bureaucracy the allegedly wise crowds have invented. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the 'crowds' on Wikipedia are a skewed demographic, so we're getting a primarily male-oriented and Western-oriented view of the world. Despite the bureaucracy, most of the time it does work surprisingly well. Dahliarose (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take 'surprisingly' and choose 'much' instead of 'most' :). I think the skew is different. I think we get a preponderance of power hungry little people in the wannabe roles, and some decent editors around the fringes. In the middle there are people who really think they must be heard. The answer is they may be heard, but probably ought not to be. Many folk here remind me of the seagulls in Finding Nemo. :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult sometimes for the sensible people to get heard when each individual's voice carries the same weight. The people who should be able to contribute the most often don't have time to do so. There are too many people with too much time on their hands implementing what they perceive as the 'rules' without any regard for common sense. The 'rules' are often contradictory, and applied inconsistently. I didn't remember the seagulls in Finding Nemo but I looked up the article on Wikipedia and found the whole plot summarised but there was not a single reference to support the summary provided! I then found a whole unreferenced article devoted to a Finding Nemo game! In fact there seem to be whole categories devoted to trivial games. Perhaps the editors who like tagging articles might like to try their hand at these articles instead. Dahliarose (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that I have been known to tag such articles without making any effort to find sources, but they do not interest me. More important, I do not then go after a whole set of similar articles to tag them in the way that appears to be happening with the poorly referenced schools. Those articles obviously interest our drive by taggers and redirecters. I also tag appalling articles for deletion. As a result of that they are often enhanced beyond measure. I do not believe that every article is sacred, though. Ah, the seagulls: "Mine! Mine! Mine!" that was their incessant cry.

Plot summaries are probably the best example of conflicting rules. See Wikipedia:MOSFILM#Plot for the best definition and see User_talk:Masem#In_the_words_of_John_MacEnroe... for an amusing discussion. Fancy raising it at some sort of grownups' forum? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging articles seems to be a waste of time as far as I can see. AfD is the only process that galvanises editors into action. I also don't believe that every article is sacred, and there's an awful lot of rubbish that quite rightly does get deleted. Most of the 'rules' on Wikipedia are really only guidelines. There only five policies which are the Five pillars one of which states there are no rules! It's interesting that it seems to be the same few editors who are devising all these guidelines. I wonder in practice how much consensus any of these guidelines actually has. Dahliarose (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus appears to be built on a random selection of vociferous folk who happen to agree with each other. It is by no means a large group. Oddly it has no authority, as it would with an elected organisation. We are back to the social experiment, one that has proved to be an amusing diversion. Every so often one must poke this set of folk with a real idea :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the opposite. Most of the policy discussions end in stalemate or, as you say, with people dying of boredom! The only test of the prevailing consensus is when an article comes up for deletion and then it's very much at the mercy of the few editors who turn up to voice their opinions. I might try and ask a few pertinent questions at the Village Pump when I have a bit more time. Dahliarose (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Charles (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	Teahouse Barnstar
	A Barnstar for seeing someone in need and going that extra mile with a helping hand. Tea and chat always available to editors old and new over at the Teahouse. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Thanks! I just wanted to show how much going that extra mile is valued.

I have been thinking about Systemic Bias a lot. Mainly because there seems to be a lot of Systemic Bias about - a bit like the old Elephant In The Room. I may have spotted a rather big issue with Systemic Bias in Wiki land, and that there is Systemic Bias against Countering Systemic Bias.

It's sort or surreally ironic, with a twist over ice.

Am I barking up the wrong tree - or have some folks missed the issue? Read More Here! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Dahlia,

Noticed your recent change to the article guidelines... I'd be more generally inclined to leave it the way it was as information regarding educational systems tends to be more informative for readers who are interested in schools than localities.

Not that they're ready yet (in fact they've been languishing while I've been taking care of my baby), but I've been working on drafts for these regional structures of the education system in respect to NSW, for example: User:Danjel/Inner West Network. The rest (at least for the Sydney region) are linked from the template at the foot of that page.

As I said, it's not ready yet... But what do you think of my work (so far)? Do you think there's scope to do something similar in regards to English schools (I don't know how your schools are organised organisationally over there)? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 04:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Danjel. I didn't actually change the meaning of the school guidelines. I just put it in a different order so that the secondary schools were dealt with first. We already recommend that articles are redirected to the locality article. I just wanted to make it clear that school districts only apply to North America. We have local education authorities here but the boundaries keep changing and it would not be easy to organise an article along those lines, especially when you're dealing with older historic schools. Some people have tried. There's a good example at Primary schools in Dacorum. I like your idea of starting articles for the Australian school networks. That seems like a good way of consolidating all the information on primary schools that don't merit standalone articles. If you can get articles started perhaps we can add this to the school guidelines as the Australian equivalent of the US school districts. I think there needs to be an explanatory article explaining what a school network is in Australia. Dahliarose (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dahliarose! It's great to see an experienced woman editor as yourself helping out at the Teahouse. Thank you! I'd encourage you to take a look at our host page to learn more about official Teahouse hosts and the roles that they play. They are important factors in helping the Teahouse develop during it's phase two. You'll also be able to learn about the important factors that make the Teahouse so special - we say hi, we're super friendly, we don't use jargon and link to wiki policy all the time, etc. I hope you consider :) We also need help inviting new editors (As right now we have more people answering than we have questions being asked!) to the Teahouse. Any help is appreciated. Thank you! Sarah (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I'll do what I can but I don't have much free time at the moment. Dahliarose (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that you are edit warring, right? If something you do is reverted again and again, be it a tag or an actual content edit, you might want to consider the possibility that you are actually wrong, or at least that consensus is not on your side and all you are doing is making a spectacle of yourself for no good purpose. You guard that tag like a junkyard dog, yet you refuse to actually just fix the problem you seem to find so important. I'm embarrassed for you that you apparently can't see how ridiculous that is. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article has been fraught with problems. There is a sockpuppet who has repeatedly created havoc and who I suspect is responsible for some of the recent edits. This has made it very difficult to work on the article at all. If you look at the edit history you'll see that I have tried to make changes in the past. At one point I tried to be bold and move all the US stuff to the US article, something which had already been suggested by a previous editor. It all got reverted by US editors who failed to see any other point of view but their own. The other UK editors also recognise the problem as you can see from the talk page. We have been trying to get people from other countries to get involved in the article but so far to no avail. What I had been hoping to do was agree on the global sources we could use, so that some progress could be made. Every time I raise the question of sources there is a deafening silence. The sources in most cases do not support what is written in the article. At some point when I have more time I will have a go at rewriting it. Dahliarose (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deafening silence????Like all the discussion on the talk page? You are creating a spectacle WP:SPIDER...for no good purpose...as mentioned above. You must be a lonely person...Jimsteele9999 (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The deafening silence is related to my suggestions to use global sources on special education, eg, UNESCO, Salamanca Statement, etc, rather than US sources which only inform us about special education in the US. It is a core Wikipedia policy that we should use reliable sources. It's funny how every time I raise the question the subject gets changed. Dahliarose (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dahliarose there are some on wikipedia who use consensus as a form of mob rule, you may have noticed. I see you have been editing the UK special education article, I wish I could help, but my communication disability prevents me from effective copy editing, however I can find information and research, etc. Keep up the good work dolfrog (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dolfrog. I suspect we're wasting our time here unless some non-US editors can help with this article and we can have a sensible discussion. I think it would help to start with to find some sources to define some of the basic terminology. Have you got any suggestions? I'm afraid don't have time to do very much at the moment as I've got too much work on and the Olympics are a major distraction too! Dahliarose (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the first ever Reading Wiki Meetup which will take place at Copa, 76-78 Kings Road, Reading, RG1 3BJ on Sunday 23 September 2012 from 1.00 pm.

I hope as many people as possible will be able to attend so that we can make this a regular event. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Berkshire related topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am bothered by the edits concerning paedophilia at Lambrook School [1]. Since you seem to specialize in British schools, I'd value your opinion on this. I don't want to edit the remarks without support, as you can imagine! Many thanks. Nick Michael (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue has been addressed by an admin, so please feel free to delete this section. Sorry to have bothered you! Nick Michael (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you got the issue resolved. Controversial comments should always be backed up by reliable sources. I often wonder whether we should be mentioning these historic cases in school articles as they relate to individual teachers rather than the school itself. Similar instances seem to have occurred at many other prep schools. It's a different matter for high profile cases such as Jimmy Savile. Interestingly Duncroft School, where Savile was a frequent visitor, doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article and instead redirects to Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. If you have any school-related questions do always ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Dahliarose (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still have my e-mail address lying around somewhere? I remembered something I meant to discuss with you ages ago (and was then promptly interrupted by a x month old, lost the thought until now). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seales School of Music and Performing Arts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seales School of Music and Performing Arts until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Fayenatic London 13:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added The Doon School template but later realized it was removed as per consensus in talk page. Do not revert my inclusion but you can make your point here. I will be watching. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I contributed to the previous on the talk page. As I said at the time it makes no sense to have a huge navbox for the Doon School on a page for someone who served as a headmaster at a number of different schools. Logically you'd then have to have navboxes for all the schools where he was the headmaster which would result in far too much clutter. Will you remove the navbox, as I'm sure someone will remove it sooner or later anyway? Dahliarose (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every headmaster of Doon School is a headmaster of multiple schools. I understand your argument but please take your time and listen to the opposite. You are saying that then we have to create templates for every school around. Now in India we have very few aristocratic schools with a colonial history. You can check this argument. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now my word aristocratic has a deep meaning. Maximum schools in India are vernacular. The English medium schools are generally considered elite. Again the schools associated with churchs are the elitest. Doon School is an exception that it is elite though it is not controlled through church. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The status of the school makes no difference. It's a question of balance. The box is out of place on the article. I see the Doon School boxes are now proliferating on lots of other articles. This issue really needs to be discussed by a wider audience at

WP:WPSCHOOLS. Dahliarose (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it seems reasonable to me also that the article template seems a little out of place. But please do not revert it unless any third person objects. Since you are from UK do take a look on the article Presidency University, Kolkata and let me know if you have info on the pre-1947 principals of Presidency University, Kolkata who are mostly British. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I haven't got time to look at any of this at the moment. The boxes aren't doing any harm and I haven't got the time or energy to debate at the moment but I suspect it's only a matter of time before they all get removed. Dahliarose (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! :)

I find wikipedia's talk pages very confusing. They do not generate notifications which an editor may check... You can only get to know what's updated or vandalised only if you are a wikipedian and you log into your account. People who do not know about wikimarkup, get discouraged to edit even if they find something editable.

So, taking into consideration, a need for a 'Joint Venture' by the Martinians to edit articles regarding Mart, I have started a group on Facebook (as everyone is connected to fb nowadays). I believe all Martinian editors at one place, discussing the scope of an edit may prove a better consensus.

Following is the link to the Facebook Group. Please join it and add fellow Martinians who may want to help make Mart-related articles on wikipedia up to date & worth reading

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1438104469747153/

Have a nice day! :)

VIVE LA MARTINIERE!!! Ahmad Faiz Mustafa 00:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizking321 (talk • contribs)

Hi Dahliarose. I would welcome any comments you have on a new draft article Draft:European_School_in_Central_Asia which I am trying to get into shape for acceptance. ESCA is a non-profit community school providing international education in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. I know this is outside your normal area of interest but not too many people cover schools in this part of the world. Any comments would be most welcome. David1000000 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dahliarose. Thank you for your assessment and support in moving items to the talk page. David1000000 — Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dahliarose! I'd like to invite you to join the Berkshire WikiProject. It's a user-group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Berkshire-related content. There is a discussion page for sharing ideas as well as developing and getting tips on improving articles. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of members. BaldBoris 14:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wescott school picture.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 11:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Guild logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you are active on Wikipedia and are still interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large Schools Project, please let us know here. We look forward to hearing from you.

---

Sent to project members 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC). You can opt of messages here.

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Middle schools in Berkshire indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]