User talk:Transmissionelement

Thanks

That's kind of you to say. It's always good working with collegial editors! -- Tenebrae (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal with Greenwich Education Group? It operates two schools, and I know schools follow different guidelines than companies. Also, the purchase of New Leaf Academy as mentioned under Lake House Academy is of great significance to the therapeutic industry, and has been widely noted in the sources given in the article. Could you please expand to allow for a quick resolution? Thanks --JamesGreenwichEd (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

I might need some help. I picked apart a wikipedia page the other day David Lat, it looks like it was a vanity page as he got a friend to set it back to where it was before I edited it, and he also posted a vaguely threatening twitter post http://twitter.com/#!/DavidLat/status/62683728983506944 It looks like he's going to try to hit back and may be using meatpuppets etc. to defend his Vanity Page. I'm fairly new, and I'm not entirely familiar with policy yet but it seems like it's going to be some trouble. I was wondering if you could help me out, with some advice on how to proceed. Thomrenault (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out and see what I can. Thanks! Transmissionelement (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that page, and while it surely needs a rewrite, there seems to be enough reliable sources to establish notability. I'd suggest being bold and doing a rewrite. Transmissionelement (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tod English

I'm curious about your comments on the Tod English discussion page. Can you elaborate? 76.22.32.86 (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to, but I'm not certain what exactly requires elaboration, so I'll do my best. It was over a year ago that I posted that comment, and if I recall correctly, the comment was made in order to avoid an edit war. Another user kept removing the references to health citations. Those citations constituted negative publicity, but given their widespread coverage in reliable sources, they were noteworthy. Beyond that, I'm not sure there's much I recall about it! Please let me know if that does not cover it. Transmissionelement (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quacquarelli Symonds

Hi, i am not clear why the many criticisms made of all ranking systems are reflected in only one entry, that relating to QS, when there are (shall we say) equally stringent remarks to be made about all the others. It jusrt strikes me as irrational and unfair, and is of a piece with the various edit wars in this field. Makes one have some rare sympathy for Henry Kissinger and his thoughts on academic argument. Royal Iris (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Royal Iris! Could you possibly help me out by providing some context to your comment? I'm not certain article you are referring to, or what the controversy might be about. If I can ascertain what the issue is, I'd be happy to respond to your comment more directly. Transmissionelement (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into it a bit more closely, I see you were referring to the comment I left on your page about a month ago about Quacquarelli Symonds. My comment was not made in reference to other articles--I don't actually know what the other rankings are out there aside from USNWR--but to the fact the you were removing criticisms that had were backed by reliable sources. Usually, in my experience, the only reason people do that is if they have some self-interest involved in protecting the subject of the article. Given that you had made edits almost solely on the QS article, it looked like perhaps you were operating with a bit of a conflict of interest. And since we'd gone back and forth once or twice, I thought I'd comment on your talk page and avoid an edit war. If you feel there are other articles out there that do not contain valid, verifiable criticisms, then I strongly urge you to go add those criticisms and their corresponding reliable sources. That should balance your concerns and help achieve a neutral point of view in those articles. Please let me know if that covers the issue. Thanks! Transmissionelement (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Company non-notable

Dear User,

In regards to the deletion of my entry (Adaptive Courseware, LLC) I'd like to know why it happened and what I can do to make sure my information remains posted under the section.

Please respond when you receive this and I can supply more information.

Alex.adapt (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alex, thanks for the message. Your entry was deleted because you added information to the article about something that is non-notable. It was similar to commercial promotion, if I recall correctly. It's not really up to me determine this--it's the basic WP rules, which clearly apply in this case. If you company is notable, it will meet the general rules for notability. That usually means reliable sourced references in 3rd party sources, and so forth. Check out the WP:N link for the basics of what constitutes notability. If your company can meet that, then there's no issue in adding not just an article on the company, but links to areas of interest (such as e-learning, etc). I'd be happy to help if that is the case. Thanks! Transmissionelement (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Are video testimonials considered reliable sourced references? Alex.adapt (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they wouldn't qualify, for a variety of reasons. It needs to be a reliable third party source such as a major magazine, newspaper, well-known blog, or news channel. Usually a few items of coverage would be required to show notability (several news articles, for example). I strongly encourage you to read WP:N for the guidelines on what would make a company notable in the first place, and perhaps also read WP:COI to better understand how your role in this process needs to be carefully handled. Best of luck with it, and feel free to ask any questions. Thanks! Transmissionelement (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the response. Thanks for taking the time. Alex.adapt (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since our last exchange our CEO has had several interviews (at least 1 published) and at least 1 well known industry analyst voluntarily write an article about our company. Is this enough for notability? Alex.adapt (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the sourcing. Was the interview done by the Wall Street Journal? Then yes, that's notable. Was it done by the Dubuque Neighborhood Monthly Update? Then no. Same for the analyst article--what's the credibility of the source? Thanks! Transmissionelement (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interview was done by Edcetera (http://edcetera.rafter.com/interview-john-boersma-says-you-should-adapt-courseware/) and a write-up done by Keith Hampson, who is a well known and reputable analyst in the industry of higher education (http://higheredmanagement.net/2012/11/23/an-ode-to-content-first-thoughts-on-adapt-courseware/) Alex.adapt (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not a one-man authority on what constitutes notability, but the Edcetera article is on a blog (and their Twitter feed has only 560 or so followers and their news coverage isn't even daily). That probably won't convince others that this is notable. And the other source is also a blog, and blogs largely do not qualify as notable. Wired, Mashable, Techcrunch...these are the types of coverage that would immediately qualify. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please find a link to our CEO's interview with the Democrat & Chronicle, a daily newspaper serving the greater Rochester area (http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012312180008) and a new interview by Keith Hampson published today (http://higheredmanagement.net/2013/01/10/digital-content-finally-gets-serious-an-interview-with-dr-john-boersma-of-adapt-courseware/). Based on our conversation I believe that at least the first link above will make my submission notable Alex.adapt (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, again, I'm not really the arbiter of this. If you want my reaction, however, I'd say that a single mention in a local Rochester paper doesn't constitute "significant coverage" as described in WP:N. I think the typical editor is looking for something a bit more national in scope. The second link is, again, a blog, which does not qualify as notable. Just my 2 cents, however. Transmissionelement (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So is posting an entry a trial and error process? Sounds like you're not the only editor that is going to decide the fate of this entry! Alex.adapt (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would only be a trial and error process if you went in blind, and at this point you should have a basic understanding of the requirements. If you post that article with just the Rochester article and a bunch of blogs, I would suspect that it would likely get flagged for deletion rather quickly.

And yes, as I've said multiple times, I'm definitely not the only person who would decide the fate of the article. But I have been around here for a while and I have a reasonably well-developed sense of what would pass muster and what wouldn't. So far, I'd still strongly lean towards thinking this isn't notable, not just yet. Thanks! Transmissionelement (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your patience. Thanks! Alex.adapt (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any time :) Transmissionelement (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the link I've attached below, which will show recent articles about Adapt Courseware. We are listed as an adaptive learning supplier in a recent Inside Higher Ed article. This article is based on a research effort lead by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This story, and much more, included in our latest press coverage. We would like to think this qualifies our company as notable according to Wikipedia standards. Any thoughts? http://adaptcourseware.com/category/news/ Alex.adapt (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, good to hear from you again. I think you are getting closer, but I think that what most Wikipedians would look for to indicate notability is an article focuses either solely or largely on the company. Inside Higher Ed is certainly a source that makes the grade, but this article doesn't really mention the company other than including it in a table. My opinion (and its just that, an opinion) is that this is a great secondary piece of confirmation, but not quite enough to achieve notability. You are getting pretty close now, though :) Transmissionelement (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note that we are listed #1 on a 2013 report commissioned by the Gates Foundation, which provides a list of almost 40 companies currently active in adaptive learning technology. The paper can be downloaded here: http://edgrowthadvisors.com/gatesfoundation/. You may also see our latest news here on our website, which includes literature from notable publications: http://adaptcourseware.com/category/news/. Alex.adapt (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, ok, so here's my personal take on this: being mentioned by the Gates Foundation is certainly a strong piece of evidence. You telling me that you're listed #1 when the listing is clearly alphabetic doesn't exactly sway me in a positive fashion :) Further, the report itself states, "These suppliers are not the only ones delivering adaptive learning solutions to colleges and universities today, nor does inclusion here imply endorsement. (Pg 13)." By itself I personally wouldn't think this proves notability, but I do think it helps supports it. I state again, however, that that is a personal opinion, and other may surely disagree. Thanks! Transmissionelement (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Prep Education

Greetings, This is Kushal Gupta again, editor of tutoringreviews.org. I wanted to explain our perspective on notability of the Jefferson Prep Education institute. They have received significant buzz in the tutoring world because of their free tutoring and SAT programs at inner city schools, and because of their work for rebuilding micro-schools in Haiti. The micro-schools initiative (which I cited in the page) is notable because of the Clinton reconstruction efforts in Port-au-Prince.

Thanks for the message, it's a pleasure to meet you. I'd suggest you post the relevant information about notability for this topic on the deletion discussion page. That will allow others to make the determination as to whether this is a notable topic. You may also wish to disclose the conflict of interest you have with this subject as I note that your tutoring reviews .org page has Jefferson Prep in the page title--there is an affiliation there, I presume? Cheers! Transmissionelement (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaplan University Cleanup

Just a quick note of thanks for cleaning up the most recent droppings on Kaplan University. As someone who went to one of the schools they absorbed, I can tell you that the droppings you cleaned up were pretty much that...droppings. I don't post my POV on the page, but I don't appreciate their spin-doctors (often via sockpuppets) putting hooey marketing dreck in the article. Wikipedia is not the place for either view. Again, thanks! --averagejoe (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, always glad to help. I have no connection to Kaplan University, but that addition was clearly opinion! Transmissionelement (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Yeah, I really thought there should be an infobox template for all the test- or examination-related articles. There wasn't any, so I created it:

Template: Infobox examination

I have added it in 12 examination articles so far, but there are many more that need to include it. Feel free to include the template in any more examination articles that you encounter. --Sarthak Sharma 11:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC) (User:intelligentguy89)

Nice, I didn't know you had created that. I'll keep an eye out for articles that need it. Thanks again! Transmissionelement (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good job!

I've noticed you in several histories making small (but important) changes. Thanks for helping to keep things neat while keeping a cool head with the advertising type people! 165.214.12.74 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the kind words! They are appreciated :) The battle with the advertising spam is neverending. Transmissionelement (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion (on the article Ramsay Corporation) but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. ansh666 03:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you used Twinkle; please let it load all the way and refresh the page before you close the tab and/or window, so that it can finish all the steps it needs to do. Otherwise, you end up with incomplete jobs like at that page. Thanks, ansh666 03:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That must have been some random failure--I've used Twinkle plenty of times for deletions, and know not to close it out early. Regardless, thanks! Transmissionelement (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I've used it so much that I'm not sure about the manual way to create Deletion pages :) Would you prefer I delete the notification and restart it? Transmissionelement (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I don't know what'll happen if you try it with the template already on there, so if you're not sure, I guess that's the best course of action! Cheers, ansh666 21:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what happens: I just reverted it and then reapplied it, and that went through ok this time. If there's a problem, I'll handle it. Thanks! Transmissionelement (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Entrance Exams in India

Hi, I see you've made a few reverts to the above page, including one which I was going to do but you beat me to it. The reason for me writing to you is do you think this is a notable topic that deserves its own article? I am considering taking it to AFD, but would like your opinion first. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the question! I'm not sure this page should exist. I don't see other pages for listing tests in other counties (at least not specifically such as for Engineering). So, it probably would be best decided by consensus, in which case AFD is perfect for that. So, I'd say submit it and let's see what happens. Thanks! Transmissionelement (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, watch this space... AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]