Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:14, 14 October 2013

Archives

August 2005 – July 2006 August 2006 – October 2006 November 2006 – February 2007 March 2007 – April 2007 May 2007 – July 2007 August 2007 September – November 2007 December 2007 – August 2008 September 2008 – December 2008 December 2008 – December 2009 December 2009 – October 2010 November 2010 – April 2011 May 2011 – October 2011 November 2011 – April 2012 May 2012 – November 2012 December 2013 – May 2013

Internship

Hi - I have undone the previous removal of my edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Internship#China I am unsure how you can view this as a how-to of any kind. The information on this post is important for anyone visiting China as an intern, and the whole idea about an encyclopaedia is to provide information that pertains to that subject matter - which is exactly what that does. Having a family member who has done just this, I only wish they had access to this kind of information at the time.

I would appreciate this being left in as there is nothing but useful information from those in China.

Thanks.

Lambda?

may i ask what the problem was? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin34120 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The primary issue is that you added copyrighted material verbatim. It's also problematic that you made many assertions that were not supported by reliable sources. That's a particular issue in the article you edited since it has a troubling history of editors making unsourced claims in that article and the article of your rival organization as members of the two organizations attempt to discredit and one-up the other. Unfortunately for you, the other organization appears to have a more credible claim for historical primacy supported by reliable sources.

Instead of continuing to edit these articles haphazardly, I recommend opening a discussion in the Talk page of one of the articles to address the issue directly. ElKevbo (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As I indicated to Edwin34120 directly, there is quite a bit of what he added which is useful, but separating out the Copyright violations and NNPOV makes it such that reverting to the beginning is probably the way to go. I have moved the table of chapters that he created over to the already existing List of Lambda Theta Phi chapters article and will pull other things that are Neutral point of view like founders as well.Naraht (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so can i refernce the work? as i got everything from lambda offcial website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin34120 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to add or edit material using reliable sources! But I again caution that this article has been contentious so it may be wise to work out any potentially problematic edits in Talk instead of continuing a long-running battle with your rival organization. ElKevbo (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Just a heads up, regarding Misplaced Pages:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Alarming sockpuppet, an SPI should be filed even if it's obvious. We often use the archive page of each sockpuppeteer to keep track of their socking history, and it is very helpful to have past socks in there. Best, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll keep that in mind in the future. But this particular sockpuppeteer is quite prolific so it appears that several admins already have a process in place for blocking and documenting his or her sockpuppets once they know about them. ElKevbo (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Kindly cease edit warring on Phillips Academy

Perhaps Misplaced Pages administrators may think themselves above the rules. But it looks like you are edit warring on the article Phillips Academy by deleting an entire section, which was subsequently restored, which you then deleted again without posting a satisfactory explanation on the talk page. My sense is the deleted material is correct; there is no reason to assume it is false or biased; you are undoing the work of many contributors over much time and preventing chances for sources to be found. Would not a more appropriate action be to tag the section as “unsourced”? But a larger concern is a violation of Misplaced Pages's rules by consistently reverting material which is against the spirit of 3RR.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources aren't optional. If you have sources, please feel free to replace the content and add the sources. And feel free to justify including the material, too. ElKevbo (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a matter of judgment. When material is controversial, or likely to be questioned, inherently dubious, or biographical in nature, then rules are more stringent, and it makes sense to delete such information. If you knocked out all material in Misplaced Pages which didn't have a reference, you would delete perhaps two thirds of the encyclopedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." It's not so much an issue of judgment as one of manpower and lack of consistency among editors; we often let material slide through despite a lack of sources simply because we don't think it's worth our time to deal with it right now but not because we think that the material should be sourced. In this instance, I think it's worth taking a few seconds to address this particular section because it's problematic on several counts with lack of sources being the most obvious. ElKevbo (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

And now that you've seen fit to lecture me about this section and then revert my edits you're going to open a discussion in the article's Talk page, right? ElKevbo (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages, we all police each other. Just a matter of following the rules, is it not? Yes I'll open a section on the PA talk page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Replying to your edit comment

I just noticed your comment on this edit. Thanks for noticing. I think I was working on multiple things and accidentally overwritten on someone else's comment. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem! ElKevbo (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of NYU Polytechnic Institute people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Ryan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright comments for Northeastern

He ElKevbo,

I received your message about copyright and donating material. If I am the copyright holder, how do I place information on Northeastern's wikipedia page without it being deleted because that is what keeps happening (particularly by you? Please don't send me to a link. Explain to me what I need to do in order to get this information posted.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacampus (talk • contribs) 14:35, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

This page has all of the details. But essentially you need to prove to us that you indeed are the copyright owner. No one knows who you are except that you're a Misplaced Pages editor so we generally look for an e-mail sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org or a notice you've added to your own webpage releasing the material under a free license that will allow us (and anyone else) to use and modify the text. I hope this helps! ElKevbo (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Penn State child sex abuse scandal: 26 July 2013

I'm not sure why you think that Misplaced Pages is not a place for relevant information to the article cited. According to The Pennsylvania State University's Payroll Office, that employee could not have possibly been in a place to witness what he said he had witnessed at the time. This single event was cited by Louis Freeh, who investigated Penn State, as "probably, in the report, the most horrific rape, that’s described." It was this event that the NCAA used against Penn State to show that their culture was corrupt from the top all the way down to the janitorial staff. And now that event has been proven false. I'm having a hard time seeing how this shouldn't be included in the Misplaced Pages article.

How can I appropriately put that in the page?

Adamshellenbarger (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You're using a primary source to perform original research. If others have already made the connection then it may be ok to include the information by citing their claims. But it's not ok for a Misplaced Pages editor to do that by him- or herself. ElKevbo (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This is research performed by an independent investigator who has over 27 years of experience as a Federal Investigator. Other than the fact that Penn State did not pay him to write this report, he is no different than Louis Freeh. I'm not the investigator, just someone who has read the report. He called Penn State and they verified that the janitor was not employed by Penn State at the time and would not have had access to where the incident took place. Adamshellenbarger (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not questioning Freeh's credentials, the credentials of his colleagues, or the quality of their report. But it's a primary source and we rarely use primary sources in Misplaced Pages because that requires us to make difficult judgments about the meaning of the source, its quality, and its place in the larger context. We rely heavily on other experts to make those judgments and cite their secondary and tertiary sources. In other words, we need to ensure that this is really important and interesting and not the isolated interest or opinion of a Misplaced Pages editor and we do that by looking to see if others have already discussed it in their work. Does that help? ElKevbo (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I understand, but I don't necessarily like it. I feel that this is pertinent fact, but I guess if it truly is other people will report it soon enough. Thank you for your time. Adamshellenbarger (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment

Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, Gilderien Chat|What I've done23:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Rutgers and eggs

I commented in support of your action at Talk:Rutgers University#Eggs and activism and advised the user to join the discussion and against starting an edit-war. I'll keep an eye on it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Re:WP:SOFIXIT

I'm loathe to add any substantial content outside my field of expertise without very careful fact-checking and making sure I understand the material. At the same time, there's no way I'm going to release my professional work under a free license without a signature, so workaday copy edits, fact-checking and talk page comments are it for me. Thanks for the invitation, though.24.19.234.62 (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of New Orleans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Louisiana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Lehigh University‎

Sigh. Always happy to lend an opinion, but never know how I get trolled so hard.  RasputinAXP  23:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Wittenberg University

To me, it looks like a 1995 incident that was the subject of a 1995 censure that was re-published in a 2000 article. Am I reading that wrong?--GrapedApe (talk)

Yeah, that looks about right. Given that, I don't see how we can discuss it in an article that makes it appear to be about recent or continuing activities. If it's a single incident from 1995 then I'm not sure why we need to mention it at all. Do you agree or should we take this to the article's Talk page for wider input? ElKevbo (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to favor including it: it's a strong charge from a well-respected group, even it it was a one-time thing. I'm not hellbent on it being in there, though. Talkpage is probably the way to go. Wittenberg University#Censure by American Philosophical Association. Feel free to re-phrase my statement of your position.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Cool; thanks! I've replied there. ElKevbo (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

• News and notes: Third time's the charm: the FDC's newest round of funding requests

• WikiProject report: 18,464 Good Articles on the wall

• Featured content: Hurricane Diane and Van Gogh

• Technology report: What can Wikidata do for Misplaced Pages?

• Traffic report: Twerking, tragedy and TV

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of colleges and universities in New Mexico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southwestern College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Miscount of votes

Actually Mistercontributor seems to have indicated that the lawsuit section only sticks out because of the rest of the article looking like an advertisement which is more in consistency with what I said. Grape has also agreed that the section is notable enough given all the sources in mainstream media. The only person you have agreeing with you is an uncivil former administrator and his friend and one other person. That's four at best if you the opinion of an uncivil party who is clearly only there for contention really counts as an opinion. The matter is still pending. AmericanDad86 (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. After re-reading his response, it looks like he did not directly support either side of the dispute but instead brought up further questions and issues. But the primary issue of you being the sole editor supporting this material and multiple editors advocating for excluding it remains. ElKevbo (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I never said I'm RasputinAXP's friend... DarthBotto _talk•cont 07:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

ElKevbo, it is clear from your constructive and civil editing style that you truly do have what is best for the article at heart. Your editing style proves that to me. You have a very respectable editing style. I thought I would just put that out there. =) You and I probably could have come to a resolution on this matter ourselves what with our respectable editing styles without all the interference from uncivil editors. Cheers! AmericanDad86 (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Trident University International (Also called: Sweet irony).

Some more proof that Murphy's law actually exists. I mention some care with the reverts and naturally my next edit is a complete miss. Thanks for fixing that one Excirial 19:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem; happy to help! ElKevbo (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC on Liberty University

Hi - would you please move your reply in the survey section to the threaded section? Our guideline says " Feel free to ask people not to add threaded replies to the survey section. This will make the RfC easier to read for the editor who closes it, which is especially important for RfCs that attract a lot of responses.". I'll add a note to the RfC about this. Or you might remove it entirely - the concept of WP:Notability doesn't seem relevant to this. Dougweller (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the question as requested but I refuse to remove the question entirely as it's completely appropriate and applicable. If I have understood her statement correctly then it's nonsensical and leads us down all sorts of black holes if we agree that Misplaced Pages RfCs are sufficient to establish that events are genuine controversies and meet the threshold for inclusion in articles on that basis alone. ElKevbo (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-09-23

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duquesne University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Benefits (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Your back must hurt from carrying all that water

My spiritual advisor has been encouraging me to focus less on winning all the time. Maybe we should give in on this one. EEng (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

• Op-ed: Commons medical diagnostic images under threat from unresolved ownership

• Discussion report: References to individuals and groups, merging wikiprojects, portals on the Main page, and more

• News and notes: WMF signals new grantmaking priorities

• Featured content: Bobby, Ben, Roger and a fantasia

• Arbitration report: Infoboxes: After the war

• WikiProject report: U2 Too

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Westminster College (Pennsylvania), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shenango (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

OSU

University of Oregon mission statement as approved by the Oregon State Board of Higher Education

References to the University of Oregon being the flagship institution and the only flagship institution (in these contexts, "the" in place of "a" designate singularity):

• On page 2: "The University of Oregon is a comprehensive research university that serves its students and the people of Oregon, the nation, and the world through the creation and transfer of knowledge in the liberal arts, the natural and social sciences, and the professions. It is the Association of American University flagship institution of the Oregon University System." (emphasis mine)

• On page 3: "As noted in the preamble to the University of Oregon mission statement, this University is Oregon's Flagship Association of American Universities institution. This status, affirmed by the Oregon University System Board sets a context for the considerations of institutional mission fulfillment." (emphasis mine)

And finally, the biggest piece of evidence:

• On page 5: "Selective Flagship Institution. We seek to enhance our flagship status within the Oregon University System by attracting and admitting the most promising undergraduate students from Oregon's divers communities, other states, and the world. To this end, we will develop clear, comprehensive, and more selective admission standards that elevate our current admission criteria consistent with our academic mission and our role as the flagship university in the State of Oregon, while at the same time ensuring unbiased assessment of promise from all student groups. We commit to improving our student retention to the extent consistent with our public mission and to graduating most students within four years." (emphasis mine)

Nowhere can I find Oregon State University formally verifying flagship status, or even informally mentioning it. Ckere (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I've replied on the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

• Traffic report: Shutdown shenanigans

• WikiProject report: Australian Roads

• Featured content: Under the sea

• News and notes: Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed

• In the media: College credit for editing Misplaced Pages

• Arbitration report: Manning naming dispute and Ebionites 3 cases continue; third arbitrator resigns

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

UNIGUIDE discussion heading

Instead of "Mass removal of Washington Monthly rankings" as the section heading, I suggest replacing the section heading with "Washington Monthly rankings in University ranking template". That's the real issue, not Steeletrap's editing. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No thank you. My objection is specific to the manner in which she has tried to make this change across multiple articles with no prior discussion and a demonstrated willingness to edit war, not with the substance of the change itself. Although I do object to the substance of the change that is an issue about which we can have a reasonable discussion and reach consensus; the behavior is disruptive and not up for discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Understood. What I was trying to do is get the discussion focused on whether Washington Monthly is appropriate in the template. But Steeletrap got the idea that the WikiProject talkpage thread was about her. IMO, instead of a "Hey folks, look at what this particular editor is doing on this or that page", I think a less editor-focused message would have worked better. More like, "Hey folks, look at some of the recent edits on this or that page." Who knows. Maybe you did not know, but in past discussions with (or involving) Steeletrap, I've seen the issues become muddled. So, while I have been tempted to say more, I think I'll steer clear of anymore involvement. – S. Rich (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

SPI for Megscaves123?

Hi. Was an SPI ever opened for Megscaves123? Given that this user is presumed to be a sock of a very prolific sockmaster (Mangoeater1000), I think it would be a good idea to get some more solid documentation on record regarding this new sock. Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor in question is so prolific, well-documented, and obvious that I don't see the point but you're welcome to jump through the bureaucratic hoops if you like! :) ElKevbo (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Re your message: Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I wandered off during the weekend. I see that C.Fred took care of the account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)