| Revision as of 22:19, 13 February 2006 edit208.161.103.135 (talk) →Notable Alumni (redux)← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:40, 20 February 2006 edit undo7265 (talk | contribs)2,690 edits archive drug-use dispute related 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) | |||
| '''Nothing has been deleted''' -- The mediator (]) has refactored the discussion onto a separate page, as noted above, and at the top of this Talk page. I have reverted your unilateral rescinding of the mediated result. In any case, I have no idea where the above quote is from, but we spent a lot of time getting to a mediated solution, I think you should abide by it. -- ] 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Rather than me boring us both with a discussion on what constitutes "deleted," let me just say that moving my comments on your relationship with Reed, my comments on my own edit regarding NPOV issues, and other items not relevant to our mediated dispute on the Drug Use section to a section titled ] is arguably worse than deletion, as no one will know to look for my comments there. I have been and will continue to abide by our mediated solution, however, I would disagree with you that this solution entailed removal of my comments. I cannot see any place in our discussion where I agreed to this, and would quote the following response I made to your suggestion that we archive the discussion: "''And I'm assuming here by "this discussion" you are talking only about the drug use discussion.''" I posted a query about this issue on Sdedeo, our mediator's, talk page, and got the response I pasted in above here, the relevant part of which I'll quote again here "''...in general if someone objects to a talk page "refactoring", it's best to err on the side of not archiving stuff.''" ]. You may also note that our mediator expressed concern over POV issues in your recent edits: "''Some of the new edits seem to have some NPOV problems, but I believe it's nothing that couldn't be resolved with patience and respect.''" ] 20:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sdedeo is the one who refactored the comments, and is he thinks they should be reverted, it should be him who does it. I assume that he moved them because they were which were part and parcel of the Drug Use Edit War. Regarding his final comment, I completely agree -- any possible POV issues can be resolved with patience and respect. We now have other long-time contributors to this page back, and I hope you will have patience with the process and show respect for me and the other contributors. -- ] 21:29, 28 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) | |||
| First, I have "reverted" nothing. I have added in various items that had previously been deleted with sourced, verifiable information. You actually ''made'' each of those edits without sources, and without any discussion here, so I don't know what you're complaining about. Other edits you made removing unsourced or POV comments) have been retained without comment. If you have opposing, sourced information, then please provide it here. -- ] 21:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think, rather than begin what might be another contentious discussion, I'll just go ahead and let the Reed College page stand as it is and not address your specific arguments at this time, unless you feel strongly for some reason that I should, pending the arbcom decision. ] 21:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Notable Alumni (redux) == | == Notable Alumni (redux) == | ||
Revision as of 05:40, 20 February 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.)
Notable Alumni (redux)
I deleted Don Miller. The online bio for the person in questions says: "After his first book came out, Don spent a few years auditing classes and hanging out with students at Reed College". There is no actual way to simply "audit" classes at Reed. I have no doubt that he hung out there, as he claims to run a "ministry" there, though few on campus have heard of it or him. Nonetheless, to be a Reed alumnus, you need to have spent at least one semester there as an actual student (I think Steve Jobs sets the low bar on this one). If anyone has information to the contrary, please correct me. -- Gnetwerker 08:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Can't speak to this guy in particular, but I must mention that it is indeed (with the consent of the instructor) possible to audit classes at Reed. It's not often done, but there are rules and procedures for it and everything. I think it's currently priced at $150 per semester class. Matt Gies 17:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, it's something like that. I was close. Matt Gies 18:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- You are right, I was wrong. Didn't pass the "current students" line in the policy. In any case, is someone who only audited classes an alumnus? (Not to mention whether this guy is "notable" vs. other Reed authors.) -- Gnetwerker 22:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)