Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:55, 21 January 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

Flagship citation

ElKevbo, could you please point out to me any article that has a citation for including "flagship" in the type? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scubo99 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not how it works. Someone has questioned the assertion so if you - or anyone else - wants it to remain in the article then sufficient evidence must be provided. On the face of it, it's not a far-fetched thing to question as flagship status is not always as official or universally recognized as some people assume, especially for states with several large universities or competing systems. Most importantly, if it's true then it should be trivial to find a reliable source supporting it, right? ElKevbo (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually came here to discuss the flagship status for the University of Kansas when I saw this discussion. I noticed the USA Today article cited by Scubo99 for Kansas State being a flagship also lists the University of Kansas as a flagship. So if that is going to be accepted as a definitive source, then both universities should be listed as flagships, though this would contradict Kansas State's president saying in an article that the University of Kansas is the flagship. Either way, I've included information in the relevant section (including a link to that other article) on the KU talk page. And thanks for being an editor, ElKevbo. Jtmartin (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Be sure to include the reference in the article, too, if you haven't already done so and let me know if you need any help! ElKevbo (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I think I got it properly cited on the Kansas page. I'll leave the discussion on Kansas State's status to the common consensus. Jtmartin (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Princeton Review reference

Hi ElKevbo - thanks for your comment about my Princeton Review edit. I agree with you, and was wondering if you can help me out on this - I wanted to remove a misleading reference to the revenues of Princeton Review's former parent, but I couldn't figure out how to remove a single reference. That's why I deleted the whole list, and I thought it was OK since most of the links were dead anyway. Do you have any suggestions, or perhaps you can remove the reference? It is the first one on the list. Thanks for any help.DeborahChopping (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Typically, information about references is written right next to the fact for which they are a reference and the "References" section just has a little bit of Misplaced Pages code that tells the software to display all of the references there. So try editing the specific section where the fact is described and you'll probably see the reference there. ElKevbo (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yale University and the obsession of its alumni with Harvard

ElKevbo, thanks for the invitation to discuss whether the Harvard-Yale Regatta is of sufficient importance to include in the introductory section of the Yale University wiki page. As I look around at the pages of other colleges in general and Ivy League universities in particular, I observe that most introductory sections do not include anything more than a passing reference to the school's sports teams, mentioning at most the team's nickname and conference affiliation or NCAA division. The history of the Harvard-Yale Regatta would seem to be a far more granular level of detail than this, more appropriate for a subsection on athletics specifically. You might note that the one exception to my observation about introductory sections is the one for Harvard University, which does go into some detail about the rivalry with Yale. I assume that all this useless minutiae about a sports rivalry was contributed by Misplaced Pages posters associated with Yale. Nothing is more important to the self-image and self-esteem of Yale alumni than their indirect association with Harvard. That's why I assumed somebody from Yale added the bit about the Harvard-Yale Regatta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.152.64 (talk • contribs) 15:42, December 15, 2012‎

That the university is involved in the oldest intercollegiate athletic competition in the country seems notable enough to include the lead. Substantial details would be inappropriate but a mention seems appropriate just as we would probably mention other notable first, oldest, largest, etc. ElKevbo (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

About the articles for deletion/Determination of the day of the week

"Misplaced Pages is not a venue for instruction manuals" you said. Could you tell me other reasons for the AFD? And what do you think about Doomsday rule? Thanks in advance. --Q5968661 (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I have no other reasons for nominating that article for deletion. And that other article should be deleted for the same reason. ElKevbo (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see! May I ask you a question: How or why do you know how to determine the day of the week? --Q5968661 (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't. But this is not where I would turn to learn how to do that or anything else. Encyclopedias aren't instruction manuals, how-to guides, or cook books of either the culinary or programmatic kind; they tell you about things by describing them in their cultural and historical contexts, not by providing step-by-step directions. ElKevbo (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest

I have read the guidelines and am not sure how it might apply to my edits. If I cite an academic published source authored by myself, is that considered a conflict of interest? I have only cited my own work in the case where new information has become available through my own academic research, and that material has been peer reviewed and published by an academic publisher. I have also included several other recognized academic sources to strengthen the scholarship of the article's content. The edits are neutral and have no personal connection to me other than my own academic specialization in the field. I am still learning about the Misplaced Pages ways, and I thank you for the point about the talk page of which I wasn't aware. I shall make use of that.Daniel Draney (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

• Op-ed: Meta, where innovative ideas die

• WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Episode IV: A New Year

• News and notes: 2012—the big year

• Featured content: Featured content in review

• Technology report: Looking ahead to 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Kim Garst Page

Hello Kevin! On Nov 30th, you deleted the page http://en.wikipedia.org/Kim_Garst Here were the reasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kim_Garst

I believe that this page should be republished based on Misplaced Pages's guidelines. You said that "The 2 award wins (minor awards) and the Forbes Top 50 Social Media Influencers show an emerging notability but not enough yet to pass WP:GNG." Can you please explain why this is a fact based in Misplaced Pages guidelines rather than an opinion? I feel the error may have been on my part -- for not presenting the information correctly, rather than the fact that this individual is not notable. In the world of social media, Kim Garst is among the most well-recognized names in the business. I'd like to learn how I can "show" this in a way that meets Misplaced Pages's guidelines.

Christineokelly (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have made a mistake; I had nothing to do with that AfD. Nor can I delete articles as I'm not an administrator. ElKevbo (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Drew university Alumni List

If you look at the history, even the bot thought it was vandalism. Multiple RR edits from varying ip addresses??

Anyway, I think it is unnecessary and bulky. It also has a tendency to collect self-important people. As a result I moved it. I realize that this is only my opinion, but there should have been some discussion before unilaterally relocating months after the edit. Revmqo (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's fine if you disagree with the edit but it's disrespectful to label it vandalism on those grounds alone.

Related to the article content: Have you read the editor's comments in Talk? He or she makes an argument that the list collects more cruft as a stand-alone list since those are usually watched by fewer editors than main college and university articles. I don't have any numbers to support that claim and our colleague did not provide any but my experience leads me to believe that it's probably true. ElKevbo (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I help clean up the alumni lists of other colleges in New Jersey, and I found that separate alumni lists are undesireable unless there are hundreds of notable alumni. With standalone alumni lists, there may be less incidents of namechecking, but when non-notable names are added they are rarely removed. When alumni lists are integrated into the main article, you have a better chance of someone adding a non-notable name, but it's quickly removed.

As for the claim that Drew's list are group of "self-important people", I decided to do some research. Drew's list of alumni and faculty had 54, which is not out-of-line for regionally-known liberal arts college. Comparatively, NJIT has 57, Seton Hall around 160, while Rutgers and Princeton have around 500. Of the 54, 49 had their own Wiki page, and 5 did not. Of the 5 that did not, I removed 2 that weren't really notable -- Mayra Rivera Rivera and Susan Morrison. I will add references to the other 3 (Jospeh Blotner, Holly Bakke, George Kelsey), since names on a list without their own page are required to have a citation.

Of the 49 with their own page, I believe that at least 46 of them are notable. Keep in mind that a lot of names on the list are Methodist bishops, and bishops are major denominations are often considered notable. There are 3 that I put proposed deletion tags on, but it looks like the tags were removed, so I will have them submitted to AfD. 71.125.72.106 (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I realize that you are trying to help, but what is your basis for "notable?" Susan Morrison is perhaps one of the most notable on the list. I realize that she doesn't have a Wiki page, but her accomplishments far outweigh many others on the list. As for my earlier comments of self-important people, I've endeavored to remove those who self promote on this article. Some, and by no means all, are simply college graduates.... nothing makes them notable. I still believe that having the list appear on the main article takes away from the content of the main article. Most of the names on the list contribute little to an understanding of "Drew University." I am willing to disagree, but let's have a real discussion about what make one notable in ref to Drew. Just having a wiki page isn't enough. Many simply don't meet the requirements of WP:People. Revmqo (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Could one of you please copy this conversation to the Drew University Talk page and continue the conversation there? I don't it happening here but it would be better there where others who might be watching or interested in the article can see and participate. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Just copied to Talk:Drew University. 71.251.33.239 (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

• Investigative report: Ship ahoy! New travel site finally afloat

• News and notes: Launch of annual picture competition, new grant scheme

• WikiProject report: Reach for the Stars: WikiProject Astronomy

• Discussion report: Flag Manual of Style; accessibility and equality

• Special report: Loss of an Internet genius

• Featured content: Featured articles: Quality of reviews, quality of writing in 2012

• Arbitration report: First arbitration case in almost six months

• Technology report: Intermittent outages planned, first Wikidata client deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Stalking

I don't appreciate you're rude and aggressive attitude, and it is really quite unacceptable that you are STALKING me and my Misplaced Pages activity. It is entirely unacceptable. Please stop. =//= Johnny Squeaky 23:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Your contributions are public knowledge; get over it.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain why removing unsourced information is vandalism. ElKevbo (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You are a Stalker, and if you continue, I will make a formal complaint. Your edit record will confirm your behavior. Go away. =//= Johnny Squeaky 00:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to make a formal complaint; I will happily admit to briefly looking through your edit history to see what other innocuous or correct edits you have reverted by labeling them "vandalism" without the courtesy of a legitimate explanation or justification.

Speaking of correct edits that you've reverted by labeling them "vandalism" without a real explanation: When are you going to join the discussion at Talk: Cornell University to explain why removing an unsourced fact is vandalism? ElKevbo (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)