| Revision as of 08:38, 27 January 2006 edit7265 (talk | contribs)2,690 edits rv per mediation← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:17, 27 January 2006 edit undoIronDuke (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,087 edits →please do not delete my commentsNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| There was a contentious discussion over the "Drug Use" section of this article; it has now been resolved. The archive of that debate can be found here: ]. The consensus paragraphs were agreed to and I replaced them (as well as removing the NPOV tag, per agreement) in . Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 22:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (called in as part of .) | There was a contentious discussion over the "Drug Use" section of this article; it has now been resolved. The archive of that debate can be found here: ]. The consensus paragraphs were agreed to and I replaced them (as well as removing the NPOV tag, per agreement) in . Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 22:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (called in as part of .) | ||
| == Please stop deleting comments from the talk page == | |||
| Gnetwerker: in your last edit, in your summary you noted that you were “rev per mediation.” This was never agreed on. You may not have seen your talk page, where I posted this message from our mediator: | |||
| “''Thank you very much both Gnetwerker and IronDuke. Being "on the other side" is very interesting, and I encourage you to try your hands at medcabal yourselves. It is definitely a learning experience. IronDuke, re: archived comments, I don't have a strong position on that sort of thing, and in general if someone objects to a talk page "refactoring", it's best to err on the side of not archiving stuff. Sdedeo (tips) 04:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)''" | |||
| Let us, as per the mediator we both thanked so profusely, err on the side of not archiving stuff. ] 16:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Your reversion of my edits without discussion == | |||
| I’m going to do my level best not to get into an edit war on this. If you’re going to make a point by point reversion of my edits, please discuss them with me first. ] 16:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:17, 27 January 2006
- Discussions prior to January 2006 moved to Talk:Reed_College/archive
- January 2006 Dispute on "Drug Use" section moved to Talk:Reed_College/drug_use_dispute
- (Reminder to all: it is traditional to post new material at the bottom of the talk page. Sdedeo (tips) 17:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC))
General
NPOV Debate (General)
This page is the subject of periodic spasms of change (and sometimes vandalism) from first-timers (either to Misplaced Pages or to the Reed page) who think the page is too positive about Reed. The "Drug Use" section (see talk below) is a frequent target, though several other sections get hit as well. The general comment is that the page is POV in being too positive. I have just done a brief survey of about 20 other small college pages, including Swarthmore, Haverford, Grinnell, and many others, and Reed's page is in no way unusual, certainly not in being overly positive. If someone wants to make a serious contribution about, e.g. the curriculum (too conservative?), to politics (too liberal?), or something else that can be based in some sort of objective fact, please feel free to do so. But consistent vandalism in the form of spurious negative commentary does not belong here. NPOV doesn't mean mindlessly adding negative comments until the page seems "balanced". Add facts, not opinions. -- Gnetwerker 06:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
drug use dispute archived
There was a contentious discussion over the "Drug Use" section of this article; it has now been resolved. The archive of that debate can be found here: Talk:Reed_College/drug_use_dispute. The consensus paragraphs were agreed to and I replaced them (as well as removing the NPOV tag, per agreement) in this edit. Thanks! Sdedeo (tips) 22:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (called in as part of medcab.)
Please stop deleting comments from the talk page
Gnetwerker: in your last edit, in your summary you noted that you were “rev per mediation.” This was never agreed on. You may not have seen your talk page, where I posted this message from our mediator:
“Thank you very much both Gnetwerker and IronDuke. Being "on the other side" is very interesting, and I encourage you to try your hands at medcabal yourselves. It is definitely a learning experience. IronDuke, re: archived comments, I don't have a strong position on that sort of thing, and in general if someone objects to a talk page "refactoring", it's best to err on the side of not archiving stuff. Sdedeo (tips) 04:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)"
Let us, as per the mediator we both thanked so profusely, err on the side of not archiving stuff. IronDuke 16:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Your reversion of my edits without discussion
I’m going to do my level best not to get into an edit war on this. If you’re going to make a point by point reversion of my edits, please discuss them with me first. IronDuke 16:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)