User talk:OtterZero

Welcome![edit]

Hello, OtterZero, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! —Haemo 02:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem[edit]

No problem. This is what I do on Wikipedia anyway - cleaning-up and rearranging stuff. x42bn6 Talk 17:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeVry Edits[edit]

Hello... I'm responding here to your question/comment from the DeVry talk page:

I feel as though the outright and almost immediate reversion of all of my changes, without so much as a Talk page note, were invalidating my contribution to the article. I feel, well, silenced. Bullied, perhaps. I question whether I will be able to make any changes to this article at all without immediate reversion, and that's not a good feeling.

I just wanted to encourage you not to let this kind of stuff get to you personally. I know it's frustrating to do a bunch of work and then find people changing it without any sort of dialog at all. That happens on some pages, but not everywhere. There are lots of pages where the editing is collaborative and done with respect. Most editors are here to make Wikipedia better and have some fun in the process. But on some pages, there are editors who have private agendas and try to exert unilateral control over the articles, a policy violation known as trying to "own" an article. And some people just have bad vibes or bad social skills; they might not even know they're hurting the feelings of others.

I suggest you proceed with your DeVry edits, but also visit some other articles and make small contributions on subjects you are interested in, where you find that on the talk pages the editors are interacting in a friendly manner. That way you can get more comfortable with the process and learn the positive techniques. That will just plain feel better, and it will strengthen you for when you are working on the DeVry page.

Until now the DeVry article has been an example of just the opposite, mostly bad vibes on the talk page and people with agendas trying to manipulate the article in various ways (and they're not all in agreement too). With the recent request for comment, you and a couple other people seem to be ready to improve that page now, and it will happen. But it will take some time because the disruptive editors are still there too.

Since there are at least one or two more people editing on that page now who are trying to improve it, I suggest you visit them on their talkpages and discuss the challenges you encounter and what to do next. Learn about the consensus and the rules that can help you deal with disruptive editors. When you have consensus among sincere editors, then you have the ability to stop the bad guys from messing things up. If they also join together then it can become more challenging, but from what I've seen on that page, they seem to be mostly separate individuals that are not talking with each other. So constructive editors working together can prevail over time.

Here are some links to valuable information that can help you in handling these situations:

It seems like a lot, but it's pretty interesting stuff. Also make sure to read the links I included in my comments on the talk page.

If it turns out you need some help from other editors but you're not looking for a formal dispute resolution process (those are boring and only for use when there's no other choice), here are a couple links where you'll find friendly people who may be a good asset for you:

Hope that's helpful. If you want to reply, you can just leave a note right here and I'll see it. --Parzival418 19:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's actually very helpful :) I feel like I got off to a weird start editing Wikipedia, so it was really rewarding to hear from you and other editors who assured me that my first experience isn't the norm. If nothing else, this is the experience that finally got me to create an account and start editing, so it's certainly been rewarding in that sense as well. I was just finding it really odd over the last month or so to check in on that article (and its accompanying talk page) and see it gradually reflect one user's agenda more and more -- I'm glad to see lots of different editors and viewpoints now participating in the editing. I'll keep an eye on the article, but I'm kinda happy at this point to back away and let others review it. For example, I think it's great that some folks have actually looked into the SEC filings to investigate the lawsuit questions, a source I never would have thought to search. I'll take your advice and look for other articles in need of edits -- thanks again for your support throughout this past week :) OtterZero 20:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)OtterZero[reply]

I'm glad I was able to help. Have a good time with editing. If you need anything further, you're welcome to leave a message on my talk page. --Parzival418 03:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no worries...[edit]

Got your message about the warnings being posted all over by Codeplowed‎. You don't need to worry about those at all. Only administrators can block a user, and even then, they have to have a good reason and announce it on the noticeboards. You might take a few minutes to read some of the posts on WP:AN and WP:ANI to get an idea for how it works.

The purpose of those warning templates is to inform the offender that their behavior is not acceptable, plus, if it escalates to the point where they have to be reported to an administrator, or other procedures like WP:RFC, then there will be a record showing that they have been warned and they continued their bad behavior anyway. It wouldn't be fair to report someone instantly without warning them first, so the templates help with that process.

I recommend you take a look at my user page and read some of the Wikiguides I have listed there that relate to disruptive editors and related topics. It's good stuff to know so you don't feel in the dark when bullies come around and try to make trouble.

If you get one of those warnings on your page and it's for real because you made a mistake, it's a good idea to post an apology so anyone can see you are doing your best to belong to the community. But if someone posts a warning on your page to harrass you, you have the right to delete it, or you can do what I did and use the strikeout text and add an explanation that it was placed there as harrasment. (See Wikitext and other how-to-edit articles for details about how to use the various symbols below the edit boxes.)

In any case, your user page should never be edited by others, so if that happens you can erase it or move it to your talk page.

No worries, have fun!

--Parzival418 00:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Accreditation question response[edit]

I was hoping you might know where to find a concise list of the major campuses, or be willing to put in the time to write it. ;D The location tool on DeVry's page is painful to use and my lack of knowledge of American geography makes it slow to disambiguate Wikified locations. I put an example of what I mean on the talk page. (BTW, the Table syntax is not as bad as it looks at first, but don't hesitate to ask for help.)

I think there are enough editors watching the page now that you don't have to worry about Codeplowed's reverts: if he does malicious ones he'll just get banned faster. And the standard of citation everyone is now working at is such that I wouldn't worry about WP:COI if I were you. Unfortunately, Codeplowed has reduced his behaviour to the point where it's not worth the trouble of getting him banned (which is quite hard on Wikipedia). I'm doing my best to use sections to get around his mildly entertaining rants (it's too bad he's not allowed to mention me by name anymore), and we'll have to archive it frequently if he keeps it up. Vagary 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Colorado thing could be like the way it works in Canada: there is no accreditation, the government simply shuts you down if they don't think the programs are up to snuff. Once permitted, they can technically apply for accreditation from a body in the US, so maybe that's also how it works in Colorado?

I interpreted the biomedical thing from DeVry's accreditation page. All accreditation application results should be public, but it is forbidden for all parties to discuss a pending accreditation application beyond admitting that the application is ongoing.

We can request help using Template:Expert, but the backlog is big. Besides, the whole point of Wikipedia is that we fire from the hip and hope that someone checks it later. :D Vagary 02:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]