User talk:Kanguole/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Did you know (nomination)

...that despite the UK government committed itself to prevent schools from partially selecting their pupils ten years ago there are still a substantial number of Partially selective schools in England? by Kanguole

OK? Don't understand? talk to Victuallers (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. May I suggest a slight rewording?

...that although the UK government committed itself ten years ago to removing partial selection from schools, there are still a substantial number of partially selective schools in England?

Kanguole (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

I do not hold any brief for Ward Churchill and consider his remarks about the World Trade Center attacks to be rather silly and offensive. However, some media reports have pointed out that he did not characterise all of the victims of the attacks as members of a "technocratic corps" or "little Eichmanns" (eg [1]). Churchill himself has said that he did not intend his comments to be taken as referring to all of the victims, although he has refused to give an unreserved apology for the remarks in his 2001 essay On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that he said that afterwards, in response to the controversy, but in the essay itself (the relevant paragraph is quoted in On the Justice of Roosting Chickens), there is no such qualification. There is an equation. Maybe he just ignored the cleaners and caterers as a rhetorical flourish (mentioning them would have weakened his case), but that's what he wrote, and this sentence is about the essay. We've previously discussed this on the article talk page. Kanguole (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is room for interpretation of the Roosting Chickens essay. My view is that Churchill was trying to denigrate the people that he saw as financial moguls in New York, rather than every victim of the attacks. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a possible interpretation. Another is that if you empty the bins for a technocrat you are part of the "mighty engine of profit" and complicit in its crimes. Another is that those people are not worth mentioning. But we shouldn't be interpreting, just reporting what he said. Kanguole (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Roosting Chickens essay uses overwrought language rather than a carefully thought out academic tone. However, I have tried to capture the spirit of the essay and given Ward Churchill the benefit of the doubt on the issue of whether cleaners and caterers deserved to be killed in the attacks. This approach does not downplay the firestorm of controversy that the essay created. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A discussion of this point has started on the article talk page. Kanguole (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Grammar school

Hi, the reason for bolding "Direct Grant Grammar Schools" was that there are some links to this article with that as the anchor text, and Direct grant school redirects here, so this is where readers will be looking for the definition of that term. Kanguole (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have very strong feelings about the edit. If you revert it for now, I'll have a think about it and comment on the talk page. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Fearnhill School

An article that you have been involved in editing, Fearnhill School, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fearnhill School. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? TerriersFan (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Bushey Hall School

Not being pushy, but since you've got an interest in schools I reckon you'll make a better job of it than me....
Bushey Hall School http://www.busheyhall.herts.sch.uk/
It's referred to in places, so I'll make the references I've seen links. Cheers.
Bazj (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it would have an interesting story, from a boarding school in 1928 to special measures in 2008, but I don't know much about it. With all those deletionists on the prowl, I'd rather wait till I know that story than create a stub. Kanguole (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I was being more than a little cheeky there. Done the work now. Guess we'll have to wait and see if the deletionists are looking. Bazj (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks deletion-proof to me! Kanguole (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

only need one wikilink to Herkomer

Not sure I agree that readers should be forced to scout around the page looking for the one reference that's a live link. If so, shouldn't it be the first mention rather than an arbitrary mention? I'll leave it to your discretion. Bazj (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

HCJS

Why have you been removing so many categories from school pages? Some of the removals don't make sense - Hereford Cathedral Junior School IS an independant school in England - why was that removed? Charlski (talk)

Isn't Independent school in England implied by Preparatory school in Herefordshire? Kanguole (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really, a preparatory school isn't necessarily an independent school. Also, it should still be in the independent category anyway. Charlski (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe that you are being truly helpful by removing some of the categories which you are removing. Just out of interest, why are you doing it? Charlski (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that all the categories I've removed have been redundant supercategories, per WP:SUBCAT. For example, Hereford Cathedral Junior School and Hereford Cathedral School are in Category:Independent schools in Herefordshire, which is included in Category:Independent schools in England, so the latter category is redundant. Kanguole (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But surely only because it has been made redundant by you? I just think that the supercategories are useful, as, I'm sure are the county categories. Charlski (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Surrey schools cats

I just wonder what your intention is regarding Surrey school cats? Crispness (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The intention is to move most of the entries in large categories like Comprehensive schools in England into subcategories. Kanguole (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But by doing that you are moving them out of a very useful category Category:Schools in Surrey where all the state secondaries were. Have you got a definition of what constitutes a comprehensive school? Or are you just moving any Surrey-based Category:Comprehensive schools in England into the new Surrey cat? I'm not sure that it is necessarily helping the situation. Would you hold off removing from the Category:Schools in Surrey cat for the time being and let me look at what might be a more appropriate residence for them? —unsigned contribution by Crispness (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A comprehensive school is defined by the DCSF as a state secondary school that admits children across the ability range; in Surrey, that's all the state-funded secondaries. They're no longer in Category:Schools in Surrey, but they are in Category:Comprehensive schools in Surrey, which is a subcategory, and contains only the state secondaries. Isn't that even more useful? (I think I've done all the ones in Surrey.) Kanguole (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the DCSF definition is an exclusive or necessarily an accurate one. Independent schools can also be comprehensives. Comprehensive is as much about an educational style or pedagogic philosophy as about selection. And not all Surrey based state secondary schools are non-selective. Those run by SCC are, but there are selective state schools in both Kingston and Sutton, both of which are currently included in Category:Schools in Surrey. Many of the voluntary aided schools, and foundation schools operate highly selective admission policies whilst maintaining that they are still comprehensive. I'm not convinced that these schools necessarily match the criteria, nor about the usefulness of the cat. Crispness (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Partially selective schools like Glyn Technology School and The Winston Churchill School (Woking) are technically classified as comprehensive by the DCSF. And that is the definition used by WP, as witnessed by the parent categories of Category:Comprehensive schools in England. Many of these schools were previously in both Category:Comprehensive schools in England and Category:Schools in Surrey. I've created the intersection of those categories and moved the schools of that type into it.

Leaving aside names, would you agree that it would be useful to have a subcategory of Category:Schools in Surrey consisting of all the state-funded secondary schools in the contemporary county (excluding the London boroughs)? If so, what would you like to call it? Kanguole (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, please, please, leave my indenting alone. It's how I contribute, and I'd personally like it to reflect that. Moving on, Yes, I would like there to be a Category:State schools in Surrey or equivalent and I am happy for it to include the current membership of of the comp cat. But I think generally on WP geographical cats are just that, geographical rather than administrative. Personally I would have no objection to the inclusion of KoT and Sutton schools, but if not then it must be clear from the cat descriptions that these are LEA based cats, and not geographical. But I don't think that Category:Comprehensive schools in Surrey should be a subcat of state schools, but should be complimentary to it. Crispness (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well state schools would include primary schools, so presumably you'd want something like Category:State secondary schools in Surrey. That could serve in place of Category:Comprehensive schools in Surrey. I would prefer to specify the administrative definition, as the Kingston, Sutton and Croydon schools would also be in London categories. State schools are run by LEAs, after all. Kanguole (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a general presumption against notability for primary schools. Most can probably be deleted. I don't think there is really a necessity for primary and secondary divisions in the cats. If we are going for LAs (sorry, LEA is old hat) then this is the definitive list

(301) Barking and Dagenham
(302) Barnet
(370) Barnsley
(800) Bath and North East Somerset
(820) Bedfordshire
(303) Bexley
(330) Birmingham
(889) Blackburn with Darwen
(890) Blackpool
(350) Bolton
(837) Bournemouth
(867) Bracknell Forest
(380) Bradford
(304) Brent
(846) Brighton and Hove
(801) Bristol City of
(305) Bromley
(825) Buckinghamshire
(351) Bury
(381) Calderdale
(873) Cambridgeshire
(202) Camden
(875) Cheshire
(201) City of London
(908) Cornwall
(331) Coventry
(306) Croydon
(909) Cumbria
(841) Darlington
(831) Derby
(830) Derbyshire
(878) Devon
(371) Doncaster
(835) Dorset
(332) Dudley
(840) Durham
(307) Ealing
(811) East Riding of Yorkshire
(845) East Sussex
(308) Enfield
(881) Essex
(390) Gateshead
(916) Gloucestershire
(203) Greenwich
(204) Hackney
(876) Halton
(205) Hammersmith and Fulham
(850) Hampshire
(309) Haringey
(310) Harrow
(805) Hartlepool
(311) Havering
(884) Herefordshire
(919) Hertfordshire
(312) Hillingdon
(313) Hounslow
(921) Isle of Wight
(420) Isles Of Scilly
(206) Islington
(207) Kensington and Chelsea
(886) Kent
(810) Kingston upon Hull City of
(314) Kingston upon Thames
(382) Kirklees
(340) Knowsley
(208) Lambeth
(888) Lancashire
(383) Leeds
(856) Leicester
(855) Leicestershire
(209) Lewisham
(925) Lincolnshire
(341) Liverpool
(821) Luton
(352) Manchester
(887) Medway
(315) Merton
(806) Middlesbrough
(826) Milton Keynes
(391) Newcastle upon Tyne
(316) Newham
(926) Norfolk
(812) North East Lincolnshire
(813) North Lincolnshire
(802) North Somerset
(392) North Tyneside
(815) North Yorkshire
(928) Northamptonshire
(929) Northumberland
(892) Nottingham
(891) Nottinghamshire
(353) Oldham
(931) Oxfordshire
(874) Peterborough
(879) Plymouth
(836) Poole
(851) Portsmouth
(870) Reading
(317) Redbridge
(807) Redcar and Cleveland
(318) Richmond upon Thames
(354) Rochdale
(372) Rotherham
(857) Rutland
(355) Salford
(333) Sandwell
(343) Sefton
(373) Sheffield
(893) Shropshire
(871) Slough
(334) Solihull
(933) Somerset
(803) South Gloucestershire
(393) South Tyneside
(852) Southampton
(882) Southend-on-Sea
(210) Southwark
(342) St. Helens
(860) Staffordshire
(356) Stockport
(808) Stockton-on-Tees
(861) Stoke-on-Trent
(935) Suffolk
(394) Sunderland
(936) Surrey
(319) Sutton
(866) Swindon
(357) Tameside
(894) Telford and Wrekin
(883) Thurrock
(880) Torbay
(211) Tower Hamlets
(358) Trafford
(384) Wakefield
(335) Walsall
(320) Waltham Forest
(212) Wandsworth
(877) Warrington
(937) Warwickshire
(869) West Berkshire
(938) West Sussex
(213) Westminster
(359) Wigan
(865) Wiltshire
(868) Windsor and Maidenhead
(344) Wirral
(872) Wokingham
(336) Wolverhampton
(885) Worcestershire
(816) York

The number in brackets is the Local Authority DCSF Number and which may be useful in using as a reference point for extracting official lists. Sorry, gotta dash. Crispness (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As suggested by WP:CAT, subcategories are most useful when they have two parent categories, neither of which is included in the other. A category of state secondary schools in Surrey would be a subcategory of both Category:Schools in Surrey and Category:Comprehensive schools in England (which is itself a subcategory of Category:Secondary schools in England). There will always be a few primary schools; including them as well would create a category that cannot be placed in the existing category graph. As you say, there's a presumption against primaries, so the categories focus on secondary schools. Kanguole (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

But it also says that categories do not form a tree. There is no absolute necessity in shoe horning square pegs into round holes. So I don't agree that there needs to be seperate primary and secondary cats. Membership of a category should be by usefulness to the user rather than what appeals to editors. Crispness (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That's right: not a tree (in which each node has at most one parent) but a graph, and state secondary schools would provide a node in that graph. There are no square pegs and round holes here: state secondary schools in Surrey constitute a coherent category in themselves, though there could be a state schools in Surrey supercategory if you wanted (but it would have only one parent). Kanguole (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Add break

I disagree entirely with you on the need for separate primary and secondary school cats, so I think we should find an appropriate venue to involve others in the discussion and see if a consensus can be arrived at. Have you seen Template:Infobox UK school? For me this is an ideal vehicle for auto generation of appropriate cats. Perhaps you might agree to resume this discussion over there, and see if we can get agreement on beneficial changes to the template in order to standardise the categories used? —unsigned contribution by Crispness (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools might be suitable place for you to take this, but I don't understand the basis of the dispute.

To recap, I wanted to introduce a category for state secondary schools in Surrey, as part of breaking up the enormous Category:Comprehensive schools in England and Category:Secondary schools in England (now almost done). I also believe that the state secondaries in the county form a coherent group of schools with much in common. I don't mind what the category is called, or whether there are other categories as well.

So why do you strongly disagree with the existence of such a category? Kanguole (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I don't believe that ALL comprehensive schools in Surrey will always be state schools, neither do I believe that all state schools will necessarily be comprehensive schools. The educational ethos is incidental to their controlling interests.

I believe there should be 2 categories. One to define state vs independent and the other to define educational ethos/dogma. Neither do I mind what terminology is used for either category, but I do believe that it should be standardised right across England. The choice as far as I see it is between LA and geographical/traditional counties. Within the state sector it makes sense to use LA, but independents are not LA based and sit more comfortably within the traditional county hierarchy. This is a UK, or rather an English-specific issue, so I'd suggest WP:SCHOOL is only an "OK" choice of venue. A more appropriate venue might be WP:UK, or WP:England might be better. If its going to be at WP:SCHOOL then we should at least notify the local projects so people can comment. And vice-versa. Crispness (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you object to the existence of category for state secondary schools in Surrey (however named)? Kanguole (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't per se object to such a category. I just don't believe that it is necessary to discriminate category-wise between state secondary and state primary. Most primary schools are non notable and probably should be deleted. So a single category of Category:State schools within Surrey Local Authority (or equivalent) would be sufficient for all state schools in the area. —unsigned contribution by Crispness (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I have a use for the category I specified: it fits with the existing categorization of schools in England. I have no objection to additional categories. If you are determined that this category should not exist, I think you should take this to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools: many of those there work on non-English schools, but most of the people who work on multiple English schools do hang out there. Kanguole (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Independent schools in East Yorkshire

Hi, just spotted that you have created this category. There is no county/area of East Yorkshire, as you will see it is a dab page, it is known as the East Riding of Yorkshire. The category should be named in line with all other categories for the area as Category:Independent schools in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Thanks Keith D (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've created the category and will move the schools over. Kanguole (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for quick response. Keith D (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Kent secondary modern schools

Can you please revert any changes you have made to schools in Kent where you claim you have found a comprehensive school. When I entered the the service of the Kent Education Committee in 1981, there were 7 faith schools who tried to be comprehensive within a selective system, mainly catholic, and 3 state comprehensive schools in Kent, Holmesdale, Sheppey- Hundred of Hoo. Kent evaded Circular 11/68 by claiming it would go comprehensive on the result of the trial they had established at those three schools. It never did- The Eleven Plus rules. My Kids went to Hoo, (being the only moral choice) but subsequent legistration has undermined all these schools and Hoo is now in Medway. Please revert these changes- and if you wish to understand the dire consequences of Educational policy in Kent, you are welcome to visit, and KCC is always looking out for folk to volunteer as School Governors- which will give you access to all the papers. ClemRutter (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed only categories, not the text of articles, and the other two articles did identify the schools as comprehensive. What would you suggest as a suitable category name for these schools? Kanguole (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I had thought about this in the past- educational classification is subject to POV firefights in Kent, and as a former Labour councillor I would be accused of having a conflict of interest. What I do in any article I do edit is refer to them as Kent High School so the visible link is uses the currently acceptable euphemism, while it links to the article that accurately describes what it is.

I didn't try to implement that as a category though Category:High schools in Kent - Category:High schools in Medway could be used because I thought that something similar would have to be done with schools in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire that also have selection- and I haven't the local experience needed to ascertain the correct euphemism. These could be subcats of Category:Secondary modern schools in England. In Kent official speak, they are referred to as Nonselective schools meaning the schools kids goto when they have failed to be selected. Category:Kent high schools in Kent may be more precise but it looks silly. We still need the cat, Comprehensives in Kent for St Johns Gravesend and the other catholic schools in the Diocese of Southwark. I don't know the correct cat for St George's Gravesend, it is CofE. Without that Category:Catholic comprehensive schools in Kent would have 4 schools and Category:Catholic comprehensive schools in Medway would have 1. In Medway we still have a bilateral school- the Howard; here two separate subschools one for those who pass the eleven plus, and one for those who dont, operating on the same campus. This archane system guarentees that a Kent or Medway school will be judged to be the worse school in England, because when heavily top sliced they achieve the lowest 5A-Cs with Math/English at 16.

If you can think up a better solution- post it here and I'll peer review it before it goes live. Incidently, don't trust the articles themselves for information, there are too many conflicting interests, motivational, political and financial at stake.

ClemRutter (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Kent County Council literature seems to refer to grammar schools, wide ability schools and high schools, while Medway speaks of grammar schools, comprehensive schools and high schools (and the one bilateral you mentioned). Currently the granularity of the Wikipedia school categories is generally at the ceremonial county level rather than the LEA. That would suggest adding a new Category:High schools in Kent as a subcategory of Category:Secondary modern schools in England, and moving the schools designated by the two LEAs as "high schools" into it. The Howard School would be a special case. Kanguole (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. It is interesting to investigate the term wide ability: for example look at Fulston Manor. (Google: wide ability schools Kent). The head likes to refer to his school 'as a wide ability school, that offers a comprehensive education' which is using the terms in the colloquial sense-- Ofsted lists the school as Modern (non-selective) and this must be definitive. I suggest that wideability schools are put into Category:High schools in Kent until someone makes a case for putting them elsewhere.

Ofsted 2005 calls the Howard Other secondary. Sheppey, that still has middle schools, has Minster College (Formerly Sheppey School) which is defined as Comprehensive by Ofsted,Homewood is comprensive but ofsted just calls it secondary while Hundred of Hoo Comprehensive was relegated to Modern in Ofsteds judgement, by Medway Council decision in ?2004? but is still classified as the nearest appropriate school for eleven year olds who pass the Kent test (eleven plus) so is still an enigma! ClemRutter (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We could avoid having to make judgements by using the LEAs' own classifications in their admissions booklets[2][3]. For example, they have Fulston Manor as an all-ability/high school and Minster College, Homewood and Hundred of Hoo as comprehensive. Kanguole (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am easy about that, but believe that KCC criteria are of a lower standard than we would expect on Wikipedia. I had not seen the KCC admissions booklet and it is a masterpiece. I was puzzled why they claimed that Greenhithe, Swanscombe and Ebbsfleet were served by a comprehensive. When I last had dealings there it was a failed PFI, that replaced a failed secondary modern, but reading the criteria further... By doing this, these kids get the lowest priority if they apply for a school in Northfleet or the other suburbs of Dartford. There is a strong political imperative from residents of these areas to not service these kids. It is an administrative barbed wire fence. Kids who pass the Kent test however will be able to study in a Gravesend or Dartford Grammar school- they have created a secondary modern, though technically they can call it a Comprehensive. Using this as example, you can see the smoke and mirrors that are used in Kent to manipulate selection.

Also, by calling an area wide ability, they are not liable to pay bus fares for children to travel to the nearest Grammar School, because technically the local sec mod is wide ability, and that is the nearest appropriate school, which would explain Hextable.

The bit about CofE schools seems to be a little misleading too, but they traditionally were secmods with more compliant students (ie less lively).

You now know the background, so I suggest you just go ahead.ClemRutter (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have done. The difficult cases you mention don't have WP articles yet, I think, so I've just followed the LEA classifications. Kanguole (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Category "Grammar schools in England"

I wonder if you are willing to say why you removed the category "Grammar schools in England" from Hulme Grammar School, Oldham, Farnham Grammar School, Ilkeston Grammar School,Taunton Grammar School, etc etc? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved Farnham, Ilkeston, Taunton and a few others to Category:Defunct grammar schools in England, which is a subcategory of Category:Grammar schools in England. Hulme has "grammar school" in its name, but it is not a grammar school in the contemporary sense. Kanguole (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Actually, the schools I listed were just examples: I was really after why you were deleting the category from numerous schools. If I may assume, however, that the reasons you give for these 3 schools are representative of others, then:

(1) transfer to the more specific category of "Defunct grammar schools in England" seems eminently better where appropriate: thank you;

(2) however, how far is the description "not a grammar school in the contemporary sense" justifiable? What is it that makes such schools as Hulme Grammar not grammar schools? Certainly they are selective secondary schools: the only sense I can think of in which they might not be considered grammar schools is that they are not state schools. However, the restriction of the expression "grammar school" to state schools is universal only in the southern half of England. Not only do many public schools in the north of England have the word "grammar" in their title (e.g. Manchester Grammar School, Royal Grammar School Newcastle) but moreover in my experience the expression "grammar school" is commonly used generically in the north to include such schools. That is to say that there is not just one "contemporary sense" of the expression, and these schools are grammar schools in a contemporary sense of the expression. Thus if this is your reason for removing the category, then you are limiting the interpretation of the expression to a local one. Or do you have another reason? I should be interested to know.

JamesBWatson (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Schools that have "grammar" in their names but are not state selective are not confined to the north, e.g. comprehensives

Enfield Grammar School, King Edward Grammar School, Mary Hare Grammar School, Midhurst Grammar School, Newport Free Grammar School, Steyning Grammar School, Watford Grammar School for Boys and Watford Grammar School for Girls,

and independents

Bristol Grammar School, Kingston Grammar School, Leicester Grammar School, Lewes Old Grammar School, Loughborough Grammar School, Northamptonshire Grammar School, The Portsmouth Grammar School, Reigate Grammar School, Royal Grammar School, Guildford, Wisbech Grammar School and Wolverhampton Grammar School.

The question of usage is more difficult to handle objectively. Perhaps "contemporary sense" was too sweeping, but it does seem to be a widely accepted usage. In a quick search of national broadsheets, I was only able to find the term used in the state selective sense. So it's hard to gauge the range of the usage you describe.

However, if there are different usages of the term, the question of which one to use for Category:Grammar schools in England is a separate issue. It is common for categories in Wikipedia to include a particular definition for membership. I would argue that the interpretation "state selective schools" is more concrete, coherent and useful than "state selective schools and selective independent schools with Grammar in their names". Kanguole (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right about the wider use of the term not being restricted to the North: in fact two of the examples from elsewhere that you list I realise that I had known of, but did not think of when I was writing my comment above. Also, having thought about it, I had independently come to the conclusion that today it is reasonable to take the common expression "grammar school" in a more limited sense, whatever may be the extension of proper names containing "Grammar School".JamesBWatson (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I am offering no conclusions- but I feel that you may be looking for a simple solution where non exists. I am travelling -not at my reference book. A grammar school used to be 'a school set up for the teaching of grammar' as distinct to one set up to train choristers. So for instance Sir Edmund Shaa, Lord mayor of London, set up in his will a grammar school at Stockport to teach the poor students of the parish. This was in 1487. 30 years later in 1515, Manchester Grammar School was founded by a similar bequest. These are the true grammar schools. The rich had private tutors and no doubt someone can elucidate the origins of Eton or Harrow- which are 'public schools' . Here selection was by breeding not by intelligence. I am hazy as to the origins of the church foundations such as Winchester- but I suspect they were set up to educate the sons of the clergy. Later the good burgers of some towns decided that a more practical education was needed if the Empire was to compete and a series of 'Mathematical schools' were sponsored. Witness Rochester Maths School. These were in the same model, and may be considered Grammar schools. The state became interested in universal primary education around 1870, and enlightened authorities ie Manchester provided extended primary education to a school leaving age of 14- while students at the existing grammar schools may have had to pay. In 1944, the system was a mess and the Labour Government attempted to create a unified system. The problem was the existence of church schools, and state schools all who welcomed the money but to varying degree resented loosing control, and in the case of certain schools could not go against the deed of foundation. The system proposed was county schools- 100% controlled and financed by the county councils, Voluntary Controlled (ex anglican in the main) where the church retained 33% of the governors, and Voluntary Aided where the church for lesser funding retained 66% of the governors (usually catholic), and Schools by Special Agreement- where the school and the Secretary State tailored an agreement that would fit the demands of the articles of trust. A large group of these schools were the 'Direct Grant Grammar Schools'- Stockport Grammar, Manchester, William Hulme and Cheadle Hulme that I know of. These schools maintained a private 'prep school' and then had scholarship boys selected by the county borough on the basis of a separate entrance test and also boys whose parents paid fees. A town like Stockport also had a county grammar school- that to avoid confusion was just known as a 'School'. With later education reforms and the abolition of selection, the majority of these schools have distanced themselves from the state system and are 100% private, though to uphold the conditions in the trust- there still will run entrance tests and award scholarships. Just as the Secretary of State failed to classify schools neatly in 1944- I think Wikipedia cannot do so, without a category equivalent to Schools by Special Agreement. But you could try Category:Grammar Schools (by academic selection) Category:Grammar Schools (by charitable foundation) Category:Grammar Schools (Former Direct Grant) Category:Grammar Schools (Privately financed) Category:Grammar Schools (by special agreement)-ClemRutter (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I would be very grateful if you would come and comment about Former Schools sections of Navigation Templates. -- Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 18:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Grammar school

In an article that is wholly concerned with an historic type of advanced school found in the British and British devolved educational systems, a note concerning a description, already much in decline, of an elementary type of school in the USA is of interest to nobody. It is that type of amateurism that contributes to Wikipedia's reputation for poor quality. JHB

I've raised the issue on the article talk page. Kanguole (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re List of grammar schools in England

OK I completely missed that definition! Living in Buckinghamshire state grammar schools are as common as bread and butter. -- role^player 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It was buried in the second paragraph, so I've moved it up. Kanguole (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from List of characters in Skulduggery Pleasant. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. Another member of my family used the computer while I was logged in. It won't happen again. Kanguole 16:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

MOSFLAG

The basic principal is only to use a flag or other icons when it actually adds something to the article. The infobox displays the location as an address - would you notrmally use a flag in an address? David Underdown (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Dyson Perrins School

--Kudpung (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hagley RC High School

Hi Kanguole/Archive 1! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as being in need of a little attention or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see talk:Hagley RC High School.--Kudpung (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Worcestershire project

I understand your position, but feel nevertheless that your response could, in the interest of encouraging the WP community and the work we do, have been a little less dry and unfriendly.--Kudpung (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In case it may be of some interest, the opinion of an uninvolved outsider who stumbled on this conversation by chance: I do not find the comment unfriendly at all; it seems to me to simply state its point straightforwardly and politely. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(The above refers to this comment.)

Teitur Thordarson

A lot of discussion has gone into the spelling of the name. I suggest you check its talk page. I had a great deal of difficulty convincing the Icelandic patriots to use the English name as the article's title. I would hate to stir up those ridiculous issues again. may I suggest that undo some if not all of your changes? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Walter. Yes, I see there was extensive discussion of the name of the article, including two RM discussions, but I thought they had reached a definite conclusion. The changes I made were to revert two edits that were originally made to conform to the move back to Teitur Þórðarson when the RM discussion was re-opened, and were thus no longer appropriate:

I reversed this edit, original summary "conforming to title", a repeat of this edit: "name throughout article must conform to title". I think that principle still applies. I'll change the fullname field of the infobox back, though.
I removed the foreignchar template, because it said the article's title contained the character Þ, which it no longer does, but I'll put a foreignchars2 note in its place. Kanguole 08:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Expression of thanks

Many thanks for your editorial contributions to the article on Parmiter's School. They are much appreciated.CtznofRvna (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. And thanks for the photo, which illustrates the history nicely. Kanguole 12:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi Kanguole, sorry for any confusion, but it's probably best to ignore anything that Per Honor et Gloria says. He was actually completely banned from editing in the topic area of medieval history for over a year, for POV-pushing and misrepresenting sources, especially at the Franco-Mongol alliance article. His ban has since expired, but he seems to be back, and it looks like a new ban may be necessary. :/ If you'd like more info, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. --El on ka 18:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw some of this on the talk page. Kanguole 00:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to check. I've also contacted PHG's mentor, AngusMclellan, who is joining me in asking PHG to steer clear of the article for awhile. In the meantime, I did want to apologize to you, and hope we haven't scared you away! All GA reviewer comments are welcome. :) --El on ka 00:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Gukuna imishino

Hello Kanguole. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gukuna imishino, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an unambiguous copyright infringement, or there is other content to save. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Slow-motion edit war by Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Email

Hi. You have an email address where you can be reached? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't. (Well, I have an email address, but I don't use it for wiki.) Kanguole 12:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's a pity then. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Next time you move my stuff around Wikipedia, you notify me on my talk page. May not be according to rules or whatever, but certainly good editorial practice. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC

I have added a Outside view by Tenmei at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. I would very much appreciate your impression, especially

(a) if you can suggest a way to improve the clarity of the writing and/or

(b) if you construe any part of the diff as insufficiently moderate and forward-looking.

As you will guess, I invested quite a bit of time in drafting this; and I want to encourage you to contact me by e-mail with any constructive comments and criticism. --Tenmei (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It reads more like a reaction to the other views than a view in itself. Perhaps it would be more suitable for the talk page. Kanguole 14:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment. It suggests a different perspective than I'd previously considered. The problem isn't solely to do with my writing skills, but also to do with what I was trying to achieve. Please give me some time to think about this some more. --Tenmei (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Restatement. Please join me in encouraging Nev1 to move what he wrote at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor#Criticism interpreted as attack. My guess is that Nev1's insights are likely to be undervalued as part of a talk page thread.

Nev1's step-by-step approach helped me to clarify my understanding of the nested problem set. The sentences are demonstrably constructive, helpful, and plain. The paragraphs illustrate effective writing. I would like to see this section's text re-positioned on the main page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor#Statement of the dispute/View by certifier Nev1. This will give you and others the opportunity to join me in endorsing the problem-solving approach and conclusions.

Significantly, you will want to read the response drafted by Teeninvestor. The reaction shows that Teeninvestor also construes these words as a constructive investment of time and thought. Hopefully, the structure of this diff can be the catalyst for a few more steps in a productive process.

I wonder if Nev1's reasoning needs to be highlighted as a kind of template for use in other difficult contexts? --Tenmei (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing

This edit by Gun Powder Ma here at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor caused me to draft this explanation. The edit was quickly undone by Gun Powder Ma here; but it may be productive to seize this trivial edit as an opportunity to underscore what I mean in using this curious phrase.

I discovered these words on the userpage of Kraftlos; and I was surprised that it made sense to me. Conventionally, this form of word play escapes my grasp. I don't know whether Kraftlos is the originator or whether it is copied from an unattributed source.

My guess is that this is a peculiarly American formulation which parodies the words of Yogi Berra? Berra is well known for his pithy comments and witticisms which are called "Yogiisms." Yogiisms very often take the form of either an apparently obvious tautology, or a paradoxical contradiction.

Teeninvestor has explained that he is an American, the son of emigrants who came to the United States when he was six years old. Arguably, Teeninvestor will find value in this semi-Yogiism. Perhaps the point will be immediately accessible in ways that a carefully-composed, logical exposition fails to achieve? Who can say? In this RfC context, I interpret the phrase to mean that

the main thing

is to keep the main thing

the main thing

the primarly objective of a RfC

is to maintain a clear focus

on the purpose of the exercise

.

In other words, it is important to avert a possibility that the RfC may become side-tracked or distracted by tangential issues. I hoped that this phrase would resonate in some way for Teeninvestor. More broadly, I hoped that it would contribute to prospects of a constructive outcome.

Does this help explain what I meant and what I intended? If not, please allow me to try to explain again using different words.

Do you think this phrase helps to focus attention, or is it counterproductive?

Does this phrase help or hinder the "desired outcome"? --Tenmei (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita

I would like you to participate in the discussion on the article as GPM is making allegations that Allen actually meant the opposite of what he said. Also, nice rewrite of the intro paragraph.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way you seem to have the peer reviewed version of the paper. Can you give a link?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I got it from JSTOR. Kanguole 16:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC Teeninvestor

Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Direct grant grammar school

This article has been reviewed and awaits your feedback. Aiken ♫ 15:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

UK Schools Template

Hi just wanted to explain my edits to the UK Schools template. For some reason, the last time someone edited the image parameters, it caused lot of logos to stop showing, and quite a few have been marked for deletion as orphaned non free. All is working now and someone is sending a bot round to make null-edits to make sure all logos are showing properly. Crazy-dancing (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. There was another problem with uses of the template without an image showing an empty image tag. I hope everything is fine now. Kanguole 11:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hansard citation template

Hi. Thanks for fixing the full-stop issue with Template:Cite hansard. I'm not sure if you saw my comments here, but you addressed them in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UK school

Hello, I'm not sure whether your edit this morning might have disturbed the setting of this infobox slightly, as (for me at least), the second image on the page about Wisbech Grammar School for example is now massive. Just wondering if I need to amend the code on the article itself, or whether it's something to do with the infobox coding. Thanks. Rob (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Rob. I've put the default size back on the second image, which fixes that page. Most of the complaints were about the first image (which is usually the school logo) being stretched to 220px. Kanguole 15:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine now, thanks. Rob (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UK school

Hi. Thought you might be interested in this: Template_talk:Infobox_UK_school#Unnecessary_parameters.3F. Thanks! Mhiji (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:WPSCHOOLS

Hi Kangoule, you'll find this interesting. With you, CT Cooper, and me as the only active members for a long time, even my attempts to get a UK Schools Task Force started have failed. I'm wondering what all this sudden fuss and urgency is to 'update' the UK schools infobox when there are so many more pressing things to be sorted out concerning UK schools. Perhaps together we can make a ist of all the urgent things to do, run some searches, and list the priorities and the school pages to work on. Maybe we could also recruit some new, active members to the Schools project. What do you think? Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Schools

Hi Kangoule. Please bear with me if you are already aware of this. In early September changes were made to an infobox template that affected the display of hundreds of school crests/logos in the UK schools infobox. This is now being taken care of and you may find the discussions on this page interesting: Template talk:Infobox UK school, do however leave a message here or here if you come across any that are still not displaying correctly.
If you are still actively interested in schools and and are not already a member, and would like to help out on school pages and school templates, you may wish to consider joining the WP:WPSCHOOLS project where you can also stay abreast of developments by adding its talk page to your watchlist. Happy editing!--Kudpung (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I do have WP:WPSCHOOLS on my watchlist, and I putter around here and there intermittently when I have the time and inclination. Kanguole 02:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Survey for Template:Infobox UK school

Glad to see somebody has at last done a comprehensive survey. I was starting to worry that I might have to do it myself :-) Could you also please search for the use of the parameter |dms=, and report on that at Template talk:Infobox UK school#dms. Finally, I would be interested to hear what Wiki browser or code you used, as I need to do someting similar for the template {{Infobox laboratory}}. Please repond here. Many thanks, HairyWombat 03:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Later. Also, a report on the deputies |head_elect=, |r_head=, |deputy_head=, |r_deputy_head= at Template talk:Infobox UK school#Deputies would be useful. HairyWombat 07:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've posted the dms numbers, and will add the others. As for the dump, my method was very basic: got the list of pages from "What links here", and then wrote a shell script to fetch one every 2 seconds using raw mode. I'm sure it can be done much more efficiently using the API, which can fetch 50 pages per request. Kanguole 07:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Silly me. Special:Export is much more efficient. Kanguole 17:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Bots

Template_talk:Infobox_UK_school#BRFA_filed :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 17:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Kanguole 19:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: December 2010

Kanguole. Who are you and what do you know of Watford Grammar School for Boys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.124.151 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just someone who knows their founder was Elizabeth Fuller, as I'm sure you do. Kanguole 23:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop changing the page back. I am a representative of the school and you are just some random person with no affiliation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.124.151 (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps you should make the corresponding changes to the school's website first. Kanguole 23:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden redirects

Thanks. Did you use a script, or did you slog through that manually?—Kww(talk) 17:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I got a dump of the article histories using Special:Export, and manually wrote a script to slog through it. Doubtless there are cleverer ways. Kanguole 17:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring question

Recalling your experience at WP:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor ..., please examine a short thread at Talk:List of tributaries of Imperial China#Japan. Can you suggest alternate ways I might have been more effective in this very limited dispute? In this small thread, can you suggest lessons learned the hard way which I could have drawn from this editing experience? --Tenmei (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's too abstruse for me. Kanguole

Thank you. Follow-up questions like this have no easy answers.

Would it seem less onerous if the focus were narrowed to Cite does not verify asserted "facts"? The subject of the dispute is only two cardinal numbers and a single descriptive term, but the more difficult problem involves talking past each other as an editing strategy and its metastasis across an array of articles. IMO, the core issue which justified the investment of time and thought at WP:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor was the prospect of metastasis. --Tenmei (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox UK school

Kanguole, sorry, I haven't checked the archives, but why are we standardising to enrollment (US spelling) over enrolment (British spelling)? I think, on balance, changing one to the other will merely infuriate users, some I'm going to strike it from the bot list. Easier just to maintain both :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 14:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oops, illiterate me. I was just following the infobox, which only recognizes "enrollment". So I guess the infobox should be changed to accept either. Kanguole 14:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Admittedly I don't mind either, but there are probably people who do... :P - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 15:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Nanyue/Nam Viet Naming Discussion

A discussion regarding the name of Nanyue is happening. User:Kauffner wants to move to page to a Sino-Vietnamese term Nam-Viet (it may have been there in the past, I think). I translated much of the page from its Chinese version last year and so watch it. You may want to go read through Talk:Nanyue and add your two cents. White Whirlwind 咨 01:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Infobox schools

Sorry, I did have my doubts but the bot reported they had all been done. Do you have a list of offenders for me to pass to it? - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 18:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Infobox schools

Running, thanks. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 18:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: dcsfurn

In short, yes. Not sure there's much that needs to be done beyond that. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 14:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Broken template

I don't think your last change to {{Infobox UK school}} worked. Take a look at a school without the URN parameter set e.g. All Hallows Preparatory School. Any ideas? --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think it covers that case now. Kanguole 10:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Project Idea

Hi Im trying to gauge peoples view on a WikiProject for Education in the United Kingdom, as you have been active in editing school articles I was wondering if you would support the idea, as currently there are many articles that don't come under current projects and I think we could collectively improve all education articles in the UK with this project to support it. Mark999 13:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Schools

Hi Kanguole/Archive 1. The Wikipedia Schools Project has set up a dedicated help and feedback page at WP:WPSCH/H. This is for elementary/primary, middle, and high schools (often called college in the UK). It is not for universities.
If you regularly provide advice, you might wish to send enquirers there - we are quick to respond. However, WT:WPSCH still remains the place for general discussion about the management and policy of school articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

New US schools infobox?

Are you aware of this? Is it something that needs a consensus chat? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't. It's a database lookup template rather than an infobox, and seems pretty harmless. Kanguole 22:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kanguole, I am the author of the template and would start off by thanking you for your assessment, although it does kind of remind me of the entry for Earth in the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (fictional) of "Mostly Harmless". In any event, there are a couple of things going on here. First, if you can make any suggestions on improvements to the template itself or its sister template Template:NCES District ID, it would be appreciated. For the record, I already have a public request at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Review_request_for_Template:NCES_School_ID and will be placing a copy of the same request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools (at User:Kudpung's suggestion) in a few minutes. Secondly, I have just made a suggestion for a couple of new parameters for {{infobox school}} so that there will be formalized places for these items. See Template_talk:Infobox_school#Suggestion_for_new_entry_for_USA_schools:_NCES_School_ID for the conversation regarding this second point. Many thanks in advance for your time on this!--Arg342 (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Afd

Hi. You have shown in the past an interest in this article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qing conquest theory. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've commented there. Kanguole 00:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Hello. As one of the top ten contributors of Great Divergence, the main article on the subject, you are notified per WP:Canvass (users who are known for expertise in the field) of a AfD on whether the Canadian scholar R. Duchesne is notable in his field of "wolrd history" or not, that is whether the bio should be kept or not. See here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WP Schools in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Schools for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

castration

As you have edited Zhou dynasty, I request you review the fact that extremely irrelevant weight is being placed on the practice of castration, when #1 chinese law contained hundreds of laws for every offense imaginable, #2 none of the other empires (byzantine, roman, ottoman) which practiced castration have a special section on it in their articles. Also take a look at Traditional Chinese law and multiple other articles by looking at my contribution history. I have discussed this on the talk pages of the articles but User:Spanglej keeps reverting me.Bunser (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Beijing

Hi, Kanguole. Whoops, I inadvertently zapped your comment on Talk:Beijing. It looks as though you (accidentally?) deleted a fair amount of commentary by other editors including me with this edit, which was what I sought to undo. I have restored your comment (along with the material you removed). —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

When I saved my comment, I saw that the whole "Tiananmen Square 1989" section had been duplicated, and the previous section that you'd just re-added had been removed. I can only assume that you and I did section edits at the same time and the resulting conflict triggered a software bug. So I made a second edit to re-add your section and remove the duplicate stuff. I didn't delete any content. Kanguole 22:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup, this is a known mediawiki bug. Kanguole 22:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Anyhow, looks like we're all set now -- no deleted or duplicate material. Do you agree? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Kanguole 23:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Bye?

Do you really mean "bye"? That would be a pity - you're a valuable contributor with good ideas, even though I may not agree with all of them. I hope that you will continue to contribute in the area of GC, and I don't see a reason to doubt that Kwami appreciates you, too. His point was just that you can use anything, if you agree on it. It was a little joke, but we don't always have to be dead serious, do we? Similarly, I made a little joke, too, when I called you by the GC transliteration of "看过了". I hope I didn't offend you? — Sebastian 05:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you'd mastered GCR – well done!

Thanks, but I've given up on that article, because it's clear he's prepared to filibuster indefinitely, even with complete nonsense. Kanguole 07:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. I see what you mean by filibustering, and I have to take a big part of the blame for that myself. Partly this is because I enjoyed the conversation and felt that it was moving (albeit slowly) towards a consensus, partly because I respect Kwami for what he has done in this article so far, partly because I haven't made up my mind on the basic questions, partly because the changes that happened as spin-offs from our discussion were at least some improvements, and generally because I feel no rush about this. So, it was not with the intention to filibuster, and I assume that Kwami's intentions were equally honorable. If you would like to proceed faster then I think we can accommodate. Of course, I'd like to understand why you prefer that. — Sebastian 08:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you. Also, the issue isn't speed of change, but rather obstruction. When I hear that the choice of IPA symbols is immaterial, and that our source doesn't really mean what he so plainly states, it's clear that we are no longer engaged in reasonable discussion. That might get corrected in articles where lots of people are watching, but that's not the case here. I know kwami does a lot of great work (including on the GC article), but I've seen enough of him in action to know where this is heading, and I'd rather do something else for a while. Kanguole 11:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've run into his stubbornness, too, but he came around eventually. I see a reason to what he wrote (see the section I started at 05:50), but you're of course entitled to your own opinion. I am grateful for your work here so far and hope to see you around soon. — Sebastian 17:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Doubtless we'll meet again some time. Kanguole 18:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)