User talk:Mysteryquest
Welcome![edit]
|
Sorry Can I request your help[edit]
There is a user that is contributing enormously to DeVry Inc. entry, but it is being harass and I would say very much abuse in the Talk page of DeVry University entry, The User is Codeplowed, he seems to write long and dense post into the this talk page, I read his documented sources and all verifiable, other editors seem to be focusing on him and appear to have threaten with warning and even legal actions, also are the same exact editor I would not called Cabal in here, just I think that they are forgetting the content, as matter of fact only Codeplowed has continue editing and reediting this above mentioned entry, well I see that you have some entries, and I would like to read the contents of the Talk page, because even they are posting things and attributing those to Codeplowed. Your contribs are important and welcome to gain neutrality. Thank you. please I do not if this is a good place to leave you a message but do please erase this message if you think it was inappropriately posted, if it were, I am apologizing for the inconvenience, also I forget to sign in so I will sign with my IP address instead for what I also apologize, be well, -24.90.244.160 12:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Catalog Page 01 Image 0001.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Catalog Page 01 Image 0001.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Crownlogo.jpg)[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Crownlogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
external link question[edit]
Hello, I'm taking that format directly from Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:External links. For a good guide to university article structure, check out the WikiProject Universities section on structure. For the best available university examples, check out the FA and GA articles in the Featured lists --They're the models for what a solid college/uni article should strive for. All the best. --Bobak 22:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Capella[edit]
Mysteryqeust: I think we are at a good point now. Things may change but the article is much more balanced and fair.Spellmanloves67 19:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Your edits to Talk:Larry Craig[edit]
Actually, I removed an image and caption, not a post. At any rate, please stop adding that image as it constitutes WP:SOAP. Thanks. --Proper tea is theft 01:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mysteryquest. Just a friendly FYI -- per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments, it is appropriate to refactor talk pages to delete material not relevant to improving the article. This probably counts as removing irrelevant material from a talk page. Thanks! Fireplace 01:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Smell like a locker room to you?[edit]
Is it just me or does this place smell a little bit like old socks? :) --ElKevbo 19:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Instead of wholesale removal of sections of history because they lack sources, the better thing to do is to add {{fact}} tags where you think appropriate, and/or add the tag {{unreferencedsection}} at the top of the affected section. Unless you have a reason to question the accuracy of the information, you shouldn't just remove it - people have put work into adding it and they should be asked to source it, and given a reasonable amount of time to do so. If I missed it and these items were already tagged without result, apologies - I don't have time to look into the history right now, but thought I'd bring this up to you. cheers Tvoz |talk 22:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, ok - I suspected that could be the case. Sorry for being hasty. If requests for citations have been ignored, by all means removal makes sense - I still haven't had a chance to pore through the history on that page - and I also don't know why people don't at least add the fact with a tag and then go get the cite. Maybe your removal will wake them up! Tvoz |talk 03:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your edits of University of Phoenix... careful; You've indicated that the "noted alumni" section should go in a particular location due to guidelines. Truth is, the guidelines are clear that the section isn't for alumni at all but is for noted educators in the institution. Also, you're in the midst of an edit war, and I caution you regarding WP:3RR (I count three reverts today by you). — X S G 06:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Look a little closer at the dispute, i.e. read the talk page, and look at what was reverted. I reverted the complete reorganization of the article which an editor has implemented unilaterally based on a "proposed" guideline which he is interpreting as a rule. When I reverted last time I was not able to give the full reason why I did. As for the notable section, the section currently contains alumni not instructors, however, it does not concern me where it goes. As I stated before, I reverted because the article was turned upside down because of a purported "rule". I noted this in the talk page. I thought I only reverted it twice actually.Mysteryquest (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I saw precisely what was going on, read the talk page, and reviewed every individual edit made to the page yesterday. The Three Revert Rule is enforced regardless of reversion rationale. You reverted the "Noted Alumni" section three times prior to my urging caution. I think your rationale is just, regardless falling into an edit war trap frustrates everyone reading or editing an article. Give it at least a day to see where things land and if the artcile suffers from "the other guy's" edits, write something detailed on the talk page (i.e. not just why guidelines are just guidelines and not policy, but more about the findability of information) and make your edits. You'll get more support that way. And, of course, these suggestions, here, are just guidelines as well. You can edit war as much as an admin will let you, if that's your choice. — X S G 15:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Citing references[edit]
I can see from your recent edits to Lehigh Valley College that you are having a few problems with citing references. Since you are using potentially transient articles for your references, may I recommend following these guidelines for the references in this particular article? In particular, I would suggest this approach:
* {{cite news
|last=Plunkett
|first=John
|url=http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html
|title=Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying
|publisher=The Guardian
|date=2005-10-27
|accessdate=2005-10-27}}-- Scjessey 14:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The syntax for your tag to merge appears to be in error. I would oppose merging them anyway, as they are not exactly the same type of college. Bearian 02:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Proprietary colleges generally grant degrees, and Kevin Kinser, a professor at SUNY Albany has published research that they actually can be divided further into several sub-types, q.v. (in other words, read that section of that article). Examples are also there -- Bryant & Stratton, Monroe College, etc. On the other hand, a For-profit school is part of a much broader category, which includes proprietary colleges, trade schools like welding courses, continuing education places, and certificate programs. Bearian 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- For-profit schools are a larger set (as in Boolean logic or Set theory) that includes all of those I mentioned, plus charter schools and other high schools. Bearian 16:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"Stupid" comments[edit]
Can you give me a reason as to why you feel my addition of HTML comments to address vandalism of a specific section is "stupid" and non-encyclopedic?
Of course they're non-encyclopedic, that's why they're in <!-- ... --> comment tags and are not part of the article. "Stupid" is another matter - comment tags like that are used regularly to remind editors what to do and not to do where, all over Wikipedia. Reswobslc 10:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Crowncollegelogos.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Crowncollegelogos.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
progress[edit]
At the rate your going, the advertisement problem of the RS article will be gone.--Seriousspender (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Careful, if you edit too much runescape stuff other people think your someone else!--Seriousspender (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar[edit]
|
The Editor's Barnstar | |
| For your excellent work in removing fancruft, cleaning up, and generally improving the RuneScape article, I award you this barnstar. Keep up the good work! Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
- I second that. You're doing an amazing job. Keep it up. ----Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 17:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
please copy and paste where it says players became disatisfied from the article, i fail to see it (read through once) thanks.--Seriousspender (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- congrats on finding a source--Seriousspender (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- on further inspection, it's an unsuitable source. Articles are submitted by random web users, consider finding another.--Seriousspender (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- player complaints to major updates are common in game articles, and that article is written no doubt by a disgruntled player. so removing until you get a source, because i don't think you'll be able to find one--Seriousspender (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The updates in under rules and cheating could probably be halfed, e.g. "Jagex issued a Customer Support News article" could be "Jagex said". Too much detail, it only needs to be briefly mentioned.--Seriousspender (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Try not to make a big deal out of it, unless good sources act otherwise.--Seriousspender (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- One update isn't any more notable than the other if 50% of the players whine about it, i doubt this is the only update which have adjusted the main parts of the game.--Seriousspender (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Try not to make a big deal out of it, unless good sources act otherwise.--Seriousspender (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have just noticed, as the rs article is constantly being edited by newbies, if there's nobody there to revert them then it will just get worse. So even if you get it to a featured article, it will lose its quality very quickly unless there is someone stopping the newbs editing it.--Seriousspender (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks[edit]
Just wanted to say thanks for reverting the soapbox in Vocational school today. That unsourced POV paragraph turned up in quite a few edu articles recently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Lehigh Valley College[edit]
Just a heads-up for you. You may wish to monitor Lehigh Valley College where you have done extensive editing. An IP address from the past has returned to remove content. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Kaplan University[edit]
I've noticed that you've done some editing to the article on Kaplan University. I just wanted to let you know that I ran a WHOIS on the IP address contributor 206.192.34.254. This IP address is assigned to Kaplan University, so this is evidence that they themselves are attempting to influence their image on Wikipedia and that the "Quick Facts" that they continue to want to have added are ads, like you said. will381796 (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
RuneScape[edit]
You're now in violation of WP:3RR on [{Runescape]]. It hardly seems worth it to edit war over such a minor thing. Why not take a break and generate some consensus on the talk page rather than continuing to edit war over this? Nandesuka (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
before you go warning me you better read what others had to say about WP:DICK and WP:STALK.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I did some editing to Wilberforce University. I know how you like to follow me around so I just thought I would make it easier for yuo just by telling you.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Mysteryquest, I just received the same messages from Spellmanloves67 on my talk page. What is it with this person? Very childish behavior. Sxbrown (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wanted to let you know that I have done some editing to Antwain Easterling.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I am just informing you to make it easier on your time. Sorry if I offended you.Spellmanloves67 (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
WyoTech[edit]
Please do not revert my edits. There is no spin and it is neutrally worded. I can see how maybe you think the "Designed to be tailored to the individual student" is more of an advertisement, but it's merely a description of how there's no set regimen of classes and students are allowed to take whatever they deem necessary to learn what they want. Thanks. :)--Flash176 (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- While I don't agree with you, I'm really not in the mood to get in a pissing contest over something as trivial as this, so I'll leave it for now.--Flash176 (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's cool, don't worry about it. It was late last night and I wasn't feeling the best, so I'm sorry for not being very pleasant. You probably know how it is, can just kinda get under your skin sometimes when people undo your work. I still don't think it sounds that way, but maybe I'm a little biased after attending there. I'll take your word for it and leave it alone. :) --Flash176 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of ITT Technical Institute[edit]
An editor has nominated ITT Technical Institute, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITT Technical Institute and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
UCI[edit]
Thanks, I try to keep an eye on things... although I hadn't noticed the recent edits before I posted the pics. I suppose they must have offended the anon somehow;-) Ameriquedialectics 20:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs portraying sexual attraction to children or adolescents[edit]
Again, while your view is valid, you did not give a valid speedy deletion reason. Neither WP:V, WP:RS or even WP:OR are reasons for speedy deletion, if you're going to vote speedy delete, please make it clear which one of these it meets. The Dominator (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. The Dominator (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Vandal[edit]
If you took the trouble to read the insulting and libellous comments made by that editor about me, you wouldn't make your pompous threat about blocking me. If you have time to waste, get that editor blocked, or would you like to be accused of being pro-pedophile too?Tony (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Tony
Re: List articles[edit]
Hi - you wrote:
I believe that attributing pedophilia to work of art is a BLP concern even if you are not accusing the artist of being a pedophile, you are still characterizing his or her work.
...in which case, you are not dealing with the biography of a living person, but rather making some (possibly false) claims about their work. This is not anything to do with a person's life whatsoever. Writers' words are constanmtly reinterpreted and misinterpreted - it is an accepted part of our careers and we are used to it. It certainly doesn't affect people's attitudes to the writers themselves - unless the works are factual. Nabokov wrote "Lolita". Was Nabokov a paedophile? No. Robert Bloch wrote "Psycho". Was he a hioomicidal maniac? No. Does anyone else think so, in either case? Not as far as I know.
If a write a book and I find it in a list of works about pedophilia, and there is no reliable, verifiable reference for its placement in that list, thats a BLP concern as far as I'm concerned, whether or not someone thinks I'm a pedophile or not. Referring to someone's work as being about pedophilia is a BLP concern, in my humble opinion.
...and you are entitled to that opinion, though you'd be in a minority among writers if you did think that. The average person (even the sub-average person) doesn't automatically assume that what someone writes as a work of fiction has any relevance to them aqs a person, other than as the creator of the words.
More to the point, though, if there is no reliable, verifiable source, then the work should be listed somewhere outside the article for sufficient time for someone to go through the list and check them all - something which should have been being done by all of those who seem to have been arguing over these articles. That is all I am suggesting. I'm not saying they should remain on public display int he lists if they haven't been sourced. I'm saying list them somewhere handy and check them. Lots of people seem to have been commenting on the talk page "no-one has supplied any sources" - yet none of those people seem to have been bothered actually looking for any sources. The situation was compounded when PetraSchelm unilaterally removed everything fropm the lists - even those items which HAD been sourced. This was a very poor move, and one which should not have taken place.
I repeat: comment out those articles which still have to be verified, then start looking for verification. Don't simply destroy the articles by removing their entire contents wholesale. Grutness...wha? 07:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
First, I want to thank you for all your work on the two pederasty articles, much of it - especially the work on the references is very helpful. There is, of course, one thing we do not see eye to eye on, and that is your construction of pederasty as an activity necessarily involving youths below the age of consent, and thus "illegal." Pederasty today is legal, as I am sure you will realize, as long as the boy is above the age of consent. Today a relationship between a sixteen year old boy and a man of thirty six is perfectly legal almost everywhere in the world, including in many states in the US. I sense that many of your edits are inspired by a genuine concern for the welfare of children (which I think I share) but that concern seems to have led you to generalizations which are unwarranted and which actually harm young people. I am sure that you will agree that to demean a lawful relationship between consenting individuals of legal age is not a praiseworthy thing to do.
So, before addressing individual instances of your problematic edits, I think we need to resolve this conceptual disagreement. If we can do that, everything else will fall into place. Haiduc (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I do realize that any relationship with a boy or girl at or above the age of consent is legal. I do not consider such a relationship to be pederastic since it is between two consenting "adults". I define a pederastic relationship to be a sexual relationship between an adult and a person under the age of consent.Mysteryquest (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- My dear fellow, your private definition of pederasty is something you can use in your personal life, but not something you can impose on a public encyclopedia. Please refer to the sources which detail the academic understanding of what pederasty is and is not. They are referenced in the article early on. They disagree with you. They are what we follow here, not my opinion or yours. Haiduc (talk) 15:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, since you seem every so familiar with them, why don't you just point out the error of my viewpoint. I did go back to the Pederasty article and make it clear that Pederasty is illegal when the the boy is under the age of consent.Mysteryquest (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please remove...[edit]
..the warning you just slapped on to my IP address - all I did was delete profanity from the Panama Canal article. --205.209.84.223 (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussing on talk[edit]
Hi, please don't revert the same thing 2x in half an hour without discussing on talk, as conversation has been started on talk.-16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I reviewed your discussions in talk and was not impressed with them. Discussions in talk can continue while the text stays in the article. Also, I have not had a response to my prior message concerning your failing to adequately reference citations. I am the one who has to go in and do the work you fail to do and I would appreciate at least an acknowledgment of my concerns. Please do not leave me any more messages until you have the courtesy to respond to mine.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
references[edit]
Sorry - I didn't mean to make an issue of it, I was just moving fast. The quotes are valuable, but they're complex and long, so they seemed to make it harder to get the point of the section. I apologize for giving the wrong impression by changing your edit without discussion.
--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I understand your position.Mysteryquest (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Your VandalProof Application[edit]
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Mysteryquest. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. βcommand 04:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The section on autosodomy is not properly sourced. Its pure original research being added by a sockpuppet of the banned user User:DavidYork71. The sources are either entirely unreliable or don't actually support the claims being made. Thanks, Gwernol 13:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The boy thing[edit]
I was away and did not focus that much on the work on the pederasty article. Now I see that there are still some remains of your early edits, presenting the practice as intrinsically a crime. I think we agreed that is not the case. Would you mind editing that out, or would you prefer that I do it? Haiduc (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I not aware of anything left in the article indicating that the practice is intrinsically a crime. By all means, edit it out, and I'll review it.Mysteryquest (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't make any of the edits that you are now revising which is why I confused at your first query. I have tweaked one of your edits though. I do believe that when pederasty involves underage boys and any kind of sexual liaison, it obviously a concern for society and the legal system.Mysteryquest (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree completely, only I think you missed the context of the discussion. The section at that point follows the evolution of societal attitudes towards such relations. Thus what is being examined is what people thought and did at the beginning of the Christian era, rather than what people should do today. I will rework it again for clarity, I see now the verb was in the wrong tense. Haiduc (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
STOP PLEASE[edit]
Let's talk!--Eustress (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Talk in the discussion of the article, which you should have done before undertaking such a radical change to an article tinged with controversy.Mysteryquest (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawal notice[edit]
I will no longer be editing University of Phoenix and just wanted to inform you personally, so that my withdrawal wouldn’t be misconstrued as trying to come off “the better editor” or something. I’ve weighed the costs and benefits of pursuing my feelings regarding edits on the article and feel that it would be best for everyone if I stepped aside. I hope you understand. Best wishes for you and Wikipedia. --Eustress (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't remember your user-name. As for you being a superhero, that all depends on you, and your willingness to compromise. GreenJoe 19:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Crossed Wire[edit]
I removed the Brian Meuller comments - I questioned whether they were appropriate weeks ago. I think you may have been moving them at the same time, so they're back in. I don't want to remove the material if it is your intention to keep it awhile longer to see if someone can come up with a citation. In general, no one has given any indication the material is relevant or that there is any consensus on a desire to keep it. I'd ask that you remove it if you are so inclined. --Caernarvon (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for some reason it was not deleted when I went to edit, so I moved it to a more appropriate spot. I have removed it though.Mysteryquest (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good, it wasn't even a very good response - and the blog source really made it inappropriate. --Caernarvon (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Reset
You gave a well argued, intelligent discussion on the reference removal re:
(diff) (hist) . . University of Phoenix; 11:54 . . (-277) . . Mysteryquest (Talk | contribs) (Removed disputed reference as I believe the issue has been sufficiently resolved in discussion)
Thanks,
--Caernarvon (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
ITT Tech Article[edit]
Hey it's Veecort here. I don't know if you noticed before but I was unreasonable as far as anyone shortening the controversy section in any way. Sorry about that. Please take a look at it now. (Also, since then I did some meat puppetry and some edit warring and was just really stubborn in general.) At present I just want my references to not be deleted entirely. I would be happy if there was just one sentence in the controversy section followed a dozen references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veecort (talk • contribs) 04:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
We are in dire need of objectivity and common sense.[edit]
There is some controversy regarding the controversy regarding ITT Tech. I have a stated bias. (I guess maybe I should have kept that a secret.) At present the article is biased in the other direction. I would love it if you could take a look and leave a comment in the talk page.Veecort (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
AIU's controversy section[edit]
I see that you haven't been active much recently, but if you do happen to be around, I'd appreciate having another set of eyes review the proposed changes for American InterContinental University. CEC's VP of Communication has proposed replacing the entire controversy section with text she has written. I've gotten some concessions, and I don't currently see any blatant NPOV issues other than general positive spin. I'm generally uncomfortable with them controlling that entire message though. I'd be grateful for any feedback. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Kids for cash[edit]
I'm sending you this to give you a heads up about the article we're both working on. In a couple of minutes I'm going to start a thread on the article talk page and am hoping we can better coordinate our efforts there. Sswonk (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, that sounds okay for me. Not sure about some of these defendants, the last three, they were involved in the scandal but not really with the kids for cash portion. I guess its too late but I would have called the article Luzerne County Judicial Scandal. Anyway, I did not put much in about them.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ted Kennedy[edit]
Mysteryqeust: I may only be an IP right now, but I don't appreciate being labeled as a vandal when I'm the one who reverted the Ted Kennedy page's vandalism. See the IP addy under mine on the Ted Kennedy history page? He's the one who added that text and replaced a picture of Kennedy with a picture of Stalin. I reverted the picture, and was in the process of reverting the text when someone else beat me to it. Apparently, you compared my most recent edit with the most recent edit of the actual vandal, which still included the offending text in the "death" section of the article, and assumed I put it in. I'm not sure how it works, I'm new to this, but I would appreciate that vandal charge being removed. I don't like having a scarlet letter attatched to my IP. And I'll be sure to never try to help again. --71.236.120.134 (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Ex parte Criner[edit]
I still don't have permission from the court to publish the opinion online, but if you shoot me an email (simon - at - joink - dot - com) I'll forward it to you.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sharon Keller. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mysteryquest, I don't see a need to take action on this edit warring report because the edits were a while ago and Simon was edit warring just as much as you. It also appears that you offered more rationale for your edits than he did (with unexplained reverts [1][2]). But I still suggest that in the future, when you encounter an editor who's being stubborn, you try to reach a consensus before reverting—especially on a page like this which, I assume, is not on front-page news or anything right now, so no harm will be done if a worse version is up for a few hours. If you and another editor reach an impasse, WP:Third opinion and relevant WikiProject talk pages can be good places to seek outside input. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
User talk:88.251.91.149[edit]
For your information this is a dynamic IP assigned by TTNET. I highly doubt that message will ever reach to whoever you were adressing 88.251.91.149 (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
nice work on that article Decora (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Mysteryquest. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |