| Revision as of 04:03, 3 February 2008 editSwatjester (talk | contribs)Administrators27,166 edits →User:SqueakBox/right to vanish← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:04, 3 February 2008 edit undoSwatjester (talk | contribs)Administrators27,166 edits →User:SqueakBox/right to vanishNext edit → | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
| :::There is no reason to keep the page - he doesn't want it there, and he has specifically stated that he has been subjected to a death threat because of it in the past. It's a clear U1, regardless of what reason he acutally used - please re-delete the page. ] 04:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | :::There is no reason to keep the page - he doesn't want it there, and he has specifically stated that he has been subjected to a death threat because of it in the past. It's a clear U1, regardless of what reason he acutally used - please re-delete the page. ] 04:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::No, as a matter of fact, it's not a clear U1 to me. I see an administrative reason to keep the page; to document his actions that led to that above deletion. ]] ] 04:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | ::::No, as a matter of fact, it's not a clear U1 to me. I see an administrative reason to keep the page; to document his actions that led to that above deletion. ]] ] 04:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| You may want to look at this edit also. ] (]) 04:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | You may want to look at this edit also. ] (]) 04:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Ok everyone hold on and stop moving stuff while I figure this out, because otherwise something's going to get lost or permanently screwed up. ]] ] 04:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:04, 3 February 2008
Φ
Euclid St. Paul's Neighborhood in st pete-- seeking consensus
Hi, Swatjester. Is this sufficiently notable for an article of its own? Do we have articles on sections of St. Pete?? Lived in Pinellas for 30+ years and never heard of it. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Google says yes but I've never heard of it either. A better person to ask would be User:Bastique who has lived in St. Pete, and User:Mike H who has lived there as well. ⇒SWATJester 17:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Godd idea, thanks. Dlohcierekim 23:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yyyeah.
How many barnstars for userpage design do you have, and how many do you want? --Kizor 21:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- None that I know of, I didn't design the page myself, Gurch did. If you're going to give me a barnstar (which I'm totally ok with), please make it some sort of article related one, or an OTRS barnstar or something. ⇒SWATJester 04:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Undue Weight?
A school being unaccredited is far and away the most important thing to to say about an unaccredited school. TallMagic (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, CMU has a history of legal troubles, and litigation in its previous incarnations. Per legal complaints to the foundation office, the particular article is heavily scrutinized to ensure that undue weight is not given to those problems. Making the first thing in the article it's accreditation is inappropriate. ⇒SWATJester 17:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The lead is supposed to include a summary of what the article is about. "The lead section summarizes the article." Misplaced Pages:Lead Not putting the most notable things about a subject in the lead is bad writing. You mention not putting legal problems in the lead (contrary to Misplaced Pages:Lead). Yet what you deleted was the simple fact that CMU is unaccredited. Which is not even the legal troubles or previous litigation. TallMagic (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC) TallMagic (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are begging the presumption that CMU's unaccreditation is the most notable thing about the subject. It is far from that. ⇒SWATJester 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- An unaccredited distance learning university is what the Misplaced Pages article California Miramar University is about. Please review the Misplaced Pages:Lead description. "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Unaccredited is not a reference to the CMU history of legal problems as you erroneously implied. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, a "distance learning university" is what the article is about. The article would not be substantively different if it was accredited or not. Regardless, due to the only "temporary" restriction of the WP:OFFICE protection on the article, it's not an issue for debate. On this article we always err on the side of caution. ⇒SWATJester 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Being unaccredited is notable. Stating that it is unaccredited is a simple fact. It is not undue weight for past legal troubles or litigation. Not following sensible Misplaced Pages guidelines, bad writing, and poorly formed articles is not erroring on the side of caution, rather it seems more likely to be WP:OWN? May I suggest that you either keep it locked down or let it go, perhaps have a little more faith in the usually well working Misplaced Pages process which usually results in improved articles. If it gets locked down again because of irrational litigation threats, so be it. I think we should fear more the warping of the Misplaced Pages process than someone's irrational legal threats based on a good Misplaced Pages article. Take care, TallMagic (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, the lack of accreditation is not notable. That's not the most notable thing about the school, it's one minor fact about it. Do No Harm. Think about it. ⇒SWATJester 20:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Being unaccredited is notable. Stating that it is unaccredited is a simple fact. It is not undue weight for past legal troubles or litigation. Not following sensible Misplaced Pages guidelines, bad writing, and poorly formed articles is not erroring on the side of caution, rather it seems more likely to be WP:OWN? May I suggest that you either keep it locked down or let it go, perhaps have a little more faith in the usually well working Misplaced Pages process which usually results in improved articles. If it gets locked down again because of irrational litigation threats, so be it. I think we should fear more the warping of the Misplaced Pages process than someone's irrational legal threats based on a good Misplaced Pages article. Take care, TallMagic (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
World Policy Council
It's difficult to copyedit oneself, so I want to thank you for your review of the article thus far. My hope is to eventually nominate the article for Good Article and Featured Article. I know that whatever copyedit survives will be a great article and hopefully will not receive many challenges from other editors who may not review the article as thoroughly as you have and hopefully will continue to provide. regards.--Ccson (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here's some advice then. Reference EVERYTHING. That's like the biggest thing in order to get it to a FA. ⇒SWATJester 06:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I do know that; however, sometimes in writing one forgets to provide the reference and a second pair of detail eyes is excellent for finding things that slip through. I like cquote and used it in the Alpha Phi Alpha article, but I read something a few months ago that said never to use cquote, instead use bquote, so I removed the template and replaced with bquote. I cant' locate where I read this; but, cquote is fine with me. thanks.--Ccson (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, IMHO cquote is better for an actual quotation, whereas the main quotation template is better used to offset things into a box. So, I only changed half of the quotes to cquote because the other ones looked better in boxes. ⇒SWATJester 18:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of 2K Sports Mixtape (Hosted By Clinton Sparks)
An article that you have been involved in editing, 2K Sports Mixtape (Hosted By Clinton Sparks), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2K Sports Mixtape (Hosted By Clinton Sparks). Thank you. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
POV pushing
Come on, you know better than to POV push, you simply cannot defend attacking PJ. Or iof you think you can, i suggest you do because to accuse them of harassment in the first sentence is a blatant POV and BLP violation, but you know that already. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not the one POV pushing. A United States District Court Judge found that PJ engaged in harassment, see for source. Sorry, but that's as neutral as you can possibly get. ⇒SWATJester 22:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
User:SqueakBox/right to vanish
Please redelete this per WP:SPEEDY#U1 - "User request. Personal user pages and subpages, upon request by their user." There's no need to keep the history of his userpage, and many users delete this periodically. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- He wanted it deleted per right to vanish. He chose not to exercise that right, and admitted he lied to trick the deleting admin into removing the page. There is exactly a reason to keep that page. ⇒SWATJester 04:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is no reason to keep the page - he doesn't want it there, and he has specifically stated that he has been subjected to a death threat because of it in the past. It's a clear U1, regardless of what reason he acutally used - please re-delete the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, as a matter of fact, it's not a clear U1 to me. I see an administrative reason to keep the page; to document his actions that led to that above deletion. ⇒SWATJester 04:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is no reason to keep the page - he doesn't want it there, and he has specifically stated that he has been subjected to a death threat because of it in the past. It's a clear U1, regardless of what reason he acutally used - please re-delete the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- He wanted it deleted per right to vanish. He chose not to exercise that right, and admitted he lied to trick the deleting admin into removing the page. There is exactly a reason to keep that page. ⇒SWATJester 04:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You may want to look at this edit also. Pairadox (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok everyone hold on and stop moving stuff while I figure this out, because otherwise something's going to get lost or permanently screwed up. ⇒SWATJester 04:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)