Talk:Anglican Church Grammar School

Abbreviations

User:220.245.180.132, Can you explain what these abbreviations stand for? Otherwise, I feel they should be left out of the article. Cnwb 12:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the unexplained abbreviations you keep adding; please discuss these changes on this talk page. Cnwb 22:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocking

User:L00ser I see no reason for you to edit the Anglican Church Grammar School site with inappropiate information that has no factual basis whatsover. I would like to put foward a ban on L00ser editing any site as he has blatently disregarded the rules and continues to vandalise the Anglican Church Grammar School site.

Third Opinion(s)

agreed, the 'controvesy' and 'student organisations' sections are a little biased, but they should NOT be delteted. feel free to edit. as an uninvolved aprty, it is obvious to me that these should remain.

By not posting here, User:220.245.180.132 has essentially pleaded no contest... The abbreviations should left out as they are rather abtruse. Be forewarned, Cnwb, the man we are dealing with here has a bit of a history. If he persists in this without explaining himself, take this to a higher level. Cheers, All.- Thesocialistesq 05:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Getting rid of the student bodies section

That is a terrible idea. They represent the students at Churchie and remain in those positions for a whole year. Their roles give them the right to be up there.

You made my point for me. They are there for a year, while Wikipedia is to remain timeless. Their role is that of a high school or middle school level student officer. That gives them notability to be included on school publications but absolutely no one has a "right" to be on Wikipedia. I have deleted the student names from this section. They should not be replaced until a full accounting has been given of the notability of the students named Pikachu, Yu-gi-oh, and Zoomer One. On a more serious note, please look at the article on Stuyvesant, which is a featured article. There is no listing of current students elected to student body positions. There are no high quality articles that have this. This is also not a problem. If you feel that their election gives them notability, please keep in mind that even people elected to positions in a city level government aren't considered notable by the standards at WP:BIO.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 06:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, the funny thing is that you take this so seriously hahaha. Mate, you need to find yourself a girl.

The sad thing is that you fail to understand that Wikipedia is not a free webhost for you to feel good about yourself. If you want to list the house captains and annually elected student officers you are free to do so on your own bandwidth. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is the largest encyclopedia in history. It is truly insignificant who was the house captain in any given year. I am removing references to individual non-notable students one more time. If they are replaced I will file a request for comment regarding this issue. I am certain that consensus would fall on the side of not including officers' names. Adding them back in would be seen as vandalism and would be a blockable offense as it would be going against consensus. As many people editing this article are probably doing so from school, this would lead to the school being blocked from editing. That would be unfortunate.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 05:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

oooooo big man, if u find that sad, then ur a bit sad urself, there are many people our school, and thus many computers at many homes, thousands, ill always win

I advise you pay attention to where you are. This is not a playground; it is an encyclopedia. If you wish to play games that you can "win", I'm sure your grammar school's playground can accommodate you. You and your friends can't "win" here any more than I or the hundreds of thousands of other editors can "win." The community and the end users "win" by having encyclopedic content. We "win" by providing that. Your edits are moving the article further from the goal, thereby losing. Please join our winning team or stop playing games.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha ummmmm hate to tell you big fella but our grammar school doesn't have a playground. you should get your story straight, first you say no one can "win" and then you tell me to join your "winning team", nice one...... ...... ..... ehem ..... ..... anyway its obvious you dont really no wat ur talkin about, oh well, makes it easier for me to WIN. Oh and by the way, I'm not "playing", if you think this is "playing" perhaps you should go to your local playground and partake in your "playing" there.... but thanks for the heads up big fella

Uh, okay. Luna Santin 21:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

shutup

Hi! It's me again. Please respect our civility policy.—WAvegetarian•(talk) 17:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Zoomers

i would like very much to find out if there is any basis in the incident that gave this moniker breath. I suffered three years of this shithole school and heard that it was. I suffered my time in Donaldson House and a senior told me there that the lad who fucked a dog was very much real. I would like to write a short history on this if possible.

i was a boarder in Donaldson House from 1988-90 and we once asked the sole repeat senior there if the legend of Zoomer was, in fact, true. He indicated that it was. He told us that it occurred when he was a Grade Eight student himself (so in 1982), the kid who violated the dog was a senior. He had thought that he was going to score on a date with a girl and had brought with him a condom in preparation. When his plans did not transpire, he opted for the dog that had integrated herself with the boarding community. He was found out the side of what was then the Grade Nine dormitory with the dog's hind legs wrapped in behind the crux of his knees. He was pulling her back and forth upon himself with her tail - doing her 'doggy style.' He used the condom at least! I cannot reference this, but this is what I heard from a living breathing senior in 1988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.126.106.66 (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering what the concensus is on including a reference to this nickname for Churchie students is. It is a term that to my knowledge is commonly used amongst Brisbane students and by that measure should be included. If included it certainly should be made clear that the origin is apocraphyl and it's usage degogratry. 194.105.170.60 13:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah, i dont think you should put zoomers in, its definiatly not for an encycoldidia (or however you spell it) lol

Not mentioning that churchie boys are called zoomers is like not mentioning hitler was a nazi.

the term zoomer comes from an incident that apparently happened when a kid was dared to have sex with the head masters dog and hence did so, and the dogs name was zoomer.

EDIT"

The dogs name was not zoomer, the guy who did it was not popular and this was the nickname given to him by other students,

that student commited suicide and let us respect him by not using it derogaratorily.

Edit: It is a long time for me now but from what I remember the dogs name was "Zoomer" and it did not belong to any of the staff but another student. Yes the student whom was "caught" conducting a sexual act with the aforementioned dog did commit suicide but after having already moved schools once or perhaps even twice. All in all, very sad. Having said this I believe that a respectful mention (not easy I guess) should be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.21.42 (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to add something so defamatory without a reference. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 11:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Mazda Car Commercial

Its a big joke that no-one gets about the private school boy in the Mazda car commercials going "Zoom Zoom". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.164.238 (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sex Abuse

Have added the Kevin Lynch saga in. Its in St. Pauls and Grammar's page, it should be here too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiran90 (talk • contribs) .

I think you forgot to copy the verification links across. I reverted your addition because of this. Ansell 10:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I can understand the comments of the school webmaster on the sexual abuse section and the school not wanting it to appear. On the other hand, it is an important part of history for survivors which should not be ignored. From the perspective of an encyclopaedia, I suspect a paper encyclopedia editor would be more interested in balance than inclusion of relatively small and controversial facts. Why doesn't the perpetrator have a Wikipedia entry??? No doubt all encyclopedia topics have controversial areas. Can they be dealt with in a consistent way? --Blouis79 13:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

We aren't interested in being balanced or necessarily fair. We certainly aren't trying to emulate FOX News. (For those readers unfamiliar with American media that was a political jab at FOX's ironic slogan.) What we strive for on Wikipdia is neutrality. The reason for there not being an entry is that no one has written it yet. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 15:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

ummmmmm wavegetarian or wateva ur name is, stop being a bitch, get a job, and for the love of god get a girl friend, end communication —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.174.3 (talk • contribs) 10:39, March 16, 2007 (UTC).

Please do not resort to argumentum ad personam and ad hominem circumstantiae. They are very poor rhetorical strategies, inherently logical fallacies, and are against one of our most basic policies. I have multiple jobs along with being a full time student and a Wikipedia administrator. I have some girl friends, but as I am no longer a child most of my friends are adults. If you were meaning to imply that I am having trouble finding a girlfriend, I'm in a committed long term relationship. As you have run out of just about any argument short of calling Godwin's Law into play, can we get back to writing an encyclopedia now? Thanks. Oh, one last thing: Ending communication is bad because then we can't determine consensus and support the free and open flow of information. —WAvegetarian (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

haha, WAvegetarian, dont take it seriously. that comment made by the unsigned user is a typical Australian Churchie "student" response: short, primitive and lacking in any form of logic or sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.157.77 (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Stage Crew

The comment blow was removed from the wiki article, it was written by an ex stage crew member is true, the students in stage crew are not recognized for their work. And neither does the school administration notice the hours put in by the stage crew members. Personally i agree with the above comment and so do some other stage crew members.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.42.225 (talk • contribs) 11:35, July 25, 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the stage crew section was written by a bitter exmember who was very upset by the lack of recognition for his work: here is the section I removed "After most events that occur during the school year that the Stage Crew boys are involved in takes away a lot of their spare time. This is because something that might only run for an hour will take hours and hours to set and pack up. For plays, the hours involve setting up, rehearsals, the performance and finally the pack up. For a dance, the hours would involve setting up, which takes a year 10 roughly 35 hours each with the time increasing as you go up the grades, driving the dance and finally bumping out that night. After a school dance that finishes at around 10:30pm, the stage crew boys are there until the early hours of the morning and leave the school at about 3:30 or sometimes 4:00 on sunday mornings.

Although stage crew is the main force behind most of the things that happen in the school that involve their equipment, there is a poor stigma about them. Not too many of the boys in the churchie community actually respect the stage crew community. Most boys see stage crew as a waste of time that they get out of class for and don no work whatsoever. However, these boys have never participated in stage crew and have no idea of what goes on behind the scenes of everything that happens at the school. " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.244.146.142 (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

A lot of text about the Stage Crew, including names of boys who hold leadership positions, and some POV wording about them being underappreciated and hard-working, is repeatedly being inserted in the article. That sort of thing is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, for obvious reasons. It may or may not be true about the stage crew being unrecognized, but that's not encyclopedic information. Please do not insert it again. (Comment posted here since the person or people who insert the same text log in from different IPs each time) --Bonadea 11:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong and Donaldson boarding houses

I was in Strong House from 1996 to 2001. If this page is intended to reflect the full history of Churchie, then I feel that it should also include the two boarding houses (Strong and Donaldson) that was merged down with Gerald and Goodwin. I would write this section myself, however, I don't have the full references and the story behind why the two boarding houses was cut down.

Fire

Is there a link to an article about the fire with exact details? I found some on The Courier Mail and Brisbane Times but none mentioned the building the fire was in. According to The Courier Mail, the fire was at 4:30PM, not 5:00PM. If it is indeed 5pm then please feel free to change it back to the correct time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.71.163 (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC) The fire was in the library building - the Roberts Centre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.205.245 (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Student body entry

I fail to see what the fuss is about. This item simply describes the methods by which the student body is formally organised.

The section beginning Boys in year 8 is of a different nature, as it describes certain policies of the school in relation to its pupils. It would be better to expand and clarify this section, and break it out as a separate item. Chasnor15 (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Alumni

George Wilson is recorded under the heading "Rugby" as "Bury FC". This is an English football (soccer) club, but I am unable to trace him. Some mistake, surely?

Slang Terms

I feel the use of the word 'churchie', while a culturally accepted term to refer to the school in Queensland, is still classed as a slang term and should be removed and replaced with the full name of the school or an abbreviation with the exception of where 'Churchie' refers to a proper noun, such as an organization titled as such. Anybody have any thoughts on this? Twistie.man (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned it is colloquially known as 'Churchie' in the opening, therefore I believe according to MoS this is acceptable. Anglican Church Grammar School is certainly a long drawn out name that would become unnecessary to repeat, much like on a biography page where you address the person by just their first or last name. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 11:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

People who feel this article needs cleaning

Please state your reasons and give appropriate examples as to why you believe that this article contains the following: (1) Low standards set by Wikipedia (2) Weasel words and unverifiable information (3) Additional references -- note that this last one has been set since 2007 and the article has vastly changed since then. And lastly, (4) Why you feel the Student bodies section should be presented using Prose. As these are subjective matters, I would like your input as to why those of you feel those tags need to remain.124.177.173.49 (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your queries. To find more information as to what is required by the tags you can click on the links highlighted in blue in the tags. For example the tag on Wikipedia standards will redirect you to WP:MOS which has a style manual that wikipedia articles should follow. The unverifiable information and additional references tags need to stay because there are still large sections of the article, such as those covering spiritual ethos, curriculum and house system that contain information which is not verifiable and needs references. This article has also in the past been subject to the addition of unverifiable content, some of which could be seen as libelous to individuals and the school, so it is important that these standards are fully met in the case of this article. I hope this answers your questions. Jenafalt (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I do have one query though, and I apologise if it's covered somewhere, but would published works by the school be viable references for the areas that you feel require further citation? While perhaps it could use further referencing, I still fail to see how it doesn't meet Wikipedia quality standards. It seems redundant to leave both tags there if it is for the same reason.124.177.173.49 (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

For uncontentious issues quoting from the school website would be fine. For example, it would be fine to have a reference from the school's website to reference the names of the school houses, but if someone was going to say that the house system was flawed or the best in Australia, for example, it would need other, unbiased, references to assert the claim validly. Jenafalt (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of weasel words template

Like many articles about educational institutions, self-promotion can become rife within an article and need to be referenced as to provide a NPOV. I noticed a removal of the weasel words template, however, I see paragraphs about the school with unreferenced quotes like "even though the 1st VIII remains the symbol of supremacy.", despite, when looking upon results, rowing results in Brisbane seem pretty even. I don't know much about GPS Sport, but perhaps a more in depth sport section to reflect how the school performs in other sports like rugby and cricket, rather than just the sports they succeed at. The article also includes other unreferenced self promotion statements, such as charitable events run by the school. Until such issues are cleared up, I don't believe this article meets WP:NPOV standards. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement of death threats

Cannot find this supposed 'press release' or any other notable material, however I may not be looking in the right spot. JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 10:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've removed this information as I could find no sources for it and it was possibly libelous. Jenafalt (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Rem. of History and Controversy content

I've rollbacked an attempt to remove well referenced content from the History and Controversy sections without any apparent explanation in edit summaries. If there's an explanation for why this information should be removed, please feel free to explain before removing it. -danjel (talk to me) 07:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to undertake a major edit of the Controversy section and feel as though I should explain what I'm going to do before I do it. Firstly, I'm going to remove the two lines about an anonymous 'ex-student' reporting being sexually abused between 1989 and 1992 because there is no reference for it (the link is dead). Secondly, I'm going to remove the sentences about a Churchie student being assaulted on Stradbroke Island. The bashing has nothing to do with Churchie itself and involves no 'controversial' behaviour on the part of the school. It was merely a coincidence that the student happened to be from Churchie - including such information is unnecessary and irrelevant for people visiting an encyclopaedic website to better understand the school. Also (and this could be debatable), I'm going to remove the paragraph about Robert Sharwood. Including details about 'kissing, fondling, oral sex and masturbation' seems like an attempt to draw the reader away from the implied 'controversy' on Churchie's part - his employment at the school. No sexual activity took place at the school. Additionally, the school fired the man upon learning of his past actions (see ). The issue with, and the controversy surrounding, Robert Sharwood was not Churchie employing him - in all the articles I have read, there is no criticism of the school's actions. The issue was Sharwood's history as a chaplain, which the school knew nothing about, and fired him when it learnt of it. I should note that the title of the source used is "Church 'covered up' sexual abuse" not "Churchie 'covered up' sexual abuse". So there was nothing 'controversial' about the school's behaviour. Hopefully people can see where I'm coming from. It seems as though a lot effort is expended in attempts to implicate Churchie in a range of 'controversies' without people bothering to acknowledge that the school itself is frequently an uninvolved party. (Apologies for the formatting of this response; I haven't used the talk page before.)W108 (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)w108

I've just done the edit and I've also deleted two other paragraphs. The paragraph to do with 'brawling' was deleted because it was unreferenced (dead link) and no other evidence of the incident exists that I can find. I've tried searching various terms on Google (i.e. 'Churchie' and 'brawling'; 'Churchie', 'station' and 'Cooparoo') and I don't get anything. Additionally, the paragraph about the alleged 'rape' by the Year 9s was very poorly referenced. Neither of the two articles cited ('Two schoolboys charged over sex attack on girl, 13', from The Courier-Mail and 'Private school boys charged with rape' from Perth Now) contain 'Churchie' or 'Anglican Church Grammar School', so neither can be used as references for the claim that Churchie students carried out the attack. Also, the City News article that purportedly revealed the boys to be from Churchie is non-existent - newspaper databases reveal nothing when the title 'Boys face Brisbane court on rape charge' is searched and the Courier Mail/Quest Community Newspaper website also shows nothing for the same search. If it cannot be proven that Churchie students were involved in/carried out the rape, then these claims have no business being on the Churchie page. I've deleted both paragraphs based on Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines (WP:VERIFY).W108 (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Change to housemasters of houses

I've just read through the list of houses at Churchie and the names of the housemasters has not been updated. I'm a current student at Churchie and I know that a few of the houses have new housemasters this year.

--203.6.250.10 (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonnotable teachers shouldn't be mentioned anyway, per WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI, so I've removed them. -danjel (talk to me) 12:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

'Additional citations needed' and 'lead section' banners

Just wondering why this article, after some pretty extensive editing, still has these two banners. The banner calling for additional citations (which I note was created in 2007) seems a little unnecessary given that there are no [citation needed] tags in the entire article. All of the 'weasel words' mentioned have been removed and the article contains very few unsupported claims. Could anyone who thinks it should stay please explain why? Otherwise, it should be deleted. Also, the lead section of the article exactly mirrors those of other schools' pages that do not have a 'lead section' banner (see, for example, Geelong Grammar School, Melbourne Grammar School, Brisbane Grammar School and St Joseph's College, Gregory Terrace). Once again, this banner seems to be on this page unnecessarily. If there are any reasons as for why it exists, could they please be made clear so the lead section could be improved? If not, it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W108 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In light of the above, and since no one has given any reasons for the continued presence of the banners, I'm going to take the initiative and remove them. If someone else thinks that there are too few references/the lead section is too short, please do us a favour and improve the article instead of pasting a banner on the page for five years and waiting for someone else to do it. W108 (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Prestigious

In the introductory paragraphs it's stated that "Churchie, [is] widely recognised as one of Australia's most prestigious schools", yet the reference given reads "One of Brisbane's most prestigious schools". A single claim that it is one of Brisbane's most prestigious schools is hardly evidence that it is widely recognised as one of Australia's most prestigious schools. - Matthew238 (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

If Churchie is one of Brisbane’s most prestigious schools, then it is ridiculous to say that it is not one of Australia’s most prestigious schools. ‘Australia’s most prestigious schools’ can only consist of the most prestigious schools in the various cities within Australia. Brisbane is a city in Australia. It is therefore a logical and appropriate extension to say that one of Brisbane’s most prestigious schools qualifies as one of Australia’s most prestigious schools, unless you are implying that all the prestigious schools in Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Darwin and Hobart fill some sort of imaginary quota of schools permitted to be called ‘prestigious’, or that they are so vastly more prestigious than Churchie, that there is no room for a Brisbane school to be called so.

Insinuating that Churchie is not even one of Brisbane’s most prestigious schools by pointing out that reference is made to a ‘single claim’ only is even more absurd. It is a GPS school. And aside from that, why would the article call it prestigious if it is not so regarded? If you look the other sources in the references list you will notice that most of them use the same or synonymous language in reference to the school.

If you’re Australian, you know that it is entirely uncontroversial to refer to a school belonging to an association of leading private schools in a major capital city (e.g. the GPS schools in Queensland or New South Wales or the APS schools in Melbourne, and their girls’ schools equivalents) as ‘prestigious’; newspapers and television reports almost invariably use that adjective in reference to such schools.

I find it hard to believe that someone could seriously bring into question such a claim. Do your own research into Australian community attitudes towards GPS schools if you genuinely doubt the propriety of the statement 'Churchie, [is] widely recognised as one of Australia's most prestigious schools'. If you can then produce evidence that Churchie is not regarded as a prestigious school, or if your prestige-o-meter shows that it is ‘not prestigious enough’ to be referred to as ‘one of Australia’s most prestigious schools’, then perhaps your concern over the use of the word ‘Australia’ instead of ‘Brisbane’ might be valid.W108 (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anglican Church Grammar School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080414195142/http://www.news.com.au:80/couriermail/story/0,23739,23525364-952,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23525364-952,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anglican Church Grammar School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.acgs.qld.edu.au/content/?id=8
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ahisa.com.au/Display.aspx?tabid=2232
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402193742/http://www.nbl.com.au/article/id/3r9rk59fxdkq1eh4nk2hxrxf6 to http://www.nbl.com.au/article/id/3r9rk59fxdkq1eh4nk2hxrxf6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anglican Church Grammar School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080412150848/http://www.jshaa.asn.au/queensland/directory/index.asp to http://www.jshaa.asn.au/queensland/directory/index.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0%2C23739%2C23525364-952%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0%2C20797%2C26171961-3102%2C00.html?from=public_rss

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)