en User talk:Contributor321

Contributor321, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Contributor321! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding endowment data

Hi,

I use the NAUCBO data because it allows people to easily access a comparison of the school's endowments compared with other universities. It also shows percent change which is very important information when looking up universities. Endowment information is usually inflated by having different methodologies to count in the endowment. Some consider external physical plant profits, patent accumulation and holdings and even non-traditional athletic revenue. Often times there aren't any sources at all. NAUCBO standardizes the data. It's considered the official source. I feel it's just a better source for us to use rather than a standalone link or US News as I have seen.

Here is the source link. 2012 values are slated to be released in late January 2013. I'm assuming next week. http://www.nacubo.org/Research/NACUBO-Commonfund_Study_of_Endowments/Public_NCSE_Tables.html

The 2012 dataset will be released next week. I will update the values then.

Thanks, DMB112 (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Cal Poly Barnstar

Awarded to Contributor321 for working on Cal Poly Pomona-related articles.

-- Marco Guzman, Jr Talk 15:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endowment link

Thanks for updating the endowment figures with the new NACUBO info. Just so you know, the link you are posting is off a little and goes to a deadlink. The "f" in PDF is missing at the end. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Noted and fixed. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Contributor321 (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for copy-editing!Xscontrib (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks you for being a friend! - Lacmaboingo (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Please ensure that you avoid WP:WIKIHOUNDING. You have previously been WP:EDITWARRING on Jessica Barth, and you have recently been doing it on Mercator (retail). Your actions, along with my own edit-diff here, have been bookmarked and will be used as future proof of your WP:DISRUPTION. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about assuming good faith and, since you're again in another content dispute, working towards a consensus instead of getting defensive? See WP:COOL. Contributor321 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have assumed WP:GOODFAITH in my previous disagreements with you, when you were rightfully corrected on them: [1]. After that event, your recent repeating actions of the same-old behavior and WP:WIKIHOUNDING my edits to another article, lead me to assume your dishonest motives. Thank you for your understanding of my trying to protect the interests of Wikipedia. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I'm always glad to help out a new editor. Contributor321 (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, User: 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 was blocked for 2 weeks for disruptive editing on 03 April 2015 (see for background), is a suspected sock puppet (see [2]) and has been involved in editing disputes with at least 15 other editors according to [3]. Contributor321 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duke's wealth

My point is that finance is under the administration part which belongs to the second paragraph of the lead where such info. was transferred to. I didn't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.136.68.165 (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't quite understand your point, nor did I notice that the 2nd paragraph already contained the information. I've reverted my addition to the 3rd paragraph, so now the information appears only once. Sorry about the confusion. Contributor321 (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity College

Edited the Fraternities and Sororities section because it is inaccurate (no AKA chapter here, the name of 'Cleo of Alpha Chi Literary Society' is just 'Cleo of Alpha Chi') 157.252.169.254 (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I added back the material I deleted. Contributor321 (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the names George Will and Tucker Carlson from the list of notable people when updating the list to include more historical figures. As these two people (a) have not done anything particularly historic, and (b) are political pundits whose presence may not contribute to image of objectivity in the article, I thought it prudent to eliminate them. They are still listed on the article of notable people who went to Trinity, along with a large number of people who are not listed on the main article. I would be happy with an edit limiting notable people to dead historical figures if that would be a reasonable compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.97.113 (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:UNIGUIDE: "Noted people – This section should give a sense of the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school (as by attendance there or by being on staff or faculty). For most schools this might take the form of a list of people meeting Wikipedia's notability standards (each with perhaps a very brief descriptive phrase), where such a list would not be excessively long." If the key criteria are "well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments," then I'd find it hard to justify including the 4 historical figures currently included. Perhaps it's to go back to the way it was before April 2014, when only appeared in the section. Contributor321 (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this standard is crucial. As these calls are subjective, I thought it prudent to only focus on people not currently alive. As for the figures listed,I would argue that being a general contributing to the victory at Gettysburg is a well-known and significant accomplishment. In addition, John Williams' accomplishments and ties to the college are enough for the college to have a building named after him. Finally, being Secretary to the Navy and Attorney General to the US are also significant accomplishments. In contrast, hosting a TV news show is not a comparable accomplishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.213.224.119 (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking the Rankings?

Hi there Contributor321. I've noticed that you've been going around Wikipedia doing an unsubstantiated ranking of the college rankings moving some rankings to the bottom and calling them "obscure rankings." Care to explain? You've also been following me around changing all of my edits. Please explain that as well.--Ticktock01 (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the years I've edited Wikipedia college pages, I've never heard of the "Payscale and CollegeNet's Social Mobility Index" until I saw your contributions, and I suspect most readers haven't either. Placing a college's "Payscale and CollegeNet's Social Mobility Index" ranking as the very 1st sentence in the Ranking section, ahead of widely known ones such as U.S. News & World Report, Forbes, ARWU, QS etc. gives it an importance that is not appropriate given it's relative obscurity, and smacks of promotion. I've therefore moved your contributions to later in the paragraphs. No disrespect to you or "Payscale and CollegeNet's Social Mobility Index" intended. Contributor321 (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you've personally heard of isn't a measure of anything and isn't a just reason for you to think you can mandate that the rankings be ranked in accordance to your unsubstantiated opinion, nor is it a just reason to stalk me.--Ticktock01 (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my position; please explain yours. Why do you think it IS appropriate for the very 1st sentence in every Ranking section you've edited to be about "Payscale and CollegeNet's Social Mobility Index"? Contributor321 (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It never crossed my mind until I saw you stalking me and doing your own personal ranking of the rankings.--Ticktock01 (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have is when Payscale and CollegeNet's Social Mobility Index's ranking is widely at variance with other rankings, yet is displayed first. Let's take your edit of Yale University as an example. Yale is ranked in the top 10 in the U.S. by the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Forbes and U.S. News & World Report. Yet the very first sentence in the Rankings section after your edit read "Yale was ranked the 440th top college in the United States by Payscale and CollegeNet's Social Mobility Index college rankings." This runs afoul of Wikipedia's "Undue Weight" principle (WP:UNDUE), which states "that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.... Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement ...." Contributor321 (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings are entirely at the mercy of the metrics used, so you're comparing apples to oranges by comparing those other rankings to the Social Mobility Index. Also, as the Social Mobility Index was the most recently published, it is the most up to date and thus quite natural to put it up top.--Ticktock01 (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UCLA Flagship

Thanks for the info. It seems pretty dubious. But more than enough to stay on wikipedia. I appreciate it! 94.163.195.184 (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duke colors

I don't mean to be rude and I don't want to revert your edits yet, but it is clear that the academic side uses #001A57 per the Style Guide and History of Duke Blue; #0736A4 is for athletics. Athletics uses the #0736A4 and the Academic part side uses #001A57. Corkythehornetfan 19:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch and politely pointing out the error. Mea culpa - I failed to notice that "the official Duke blue for the web is Hex color 001A57" is stated, plain as day, in the Style Guide. I've self-reverted. Contributor321 (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to these cuts, ASU underwent several rounds of reorganizations

321, the citation you give doesn't back up the statement you wrote, "In response to these cuts ...." My understanding from the university and other accounts is that the reorganizations were part of a strategy already in place, and were not in response to the cuts. The citation you give from ASU News bears that out: "The changes are driven primarily by opportunities for intellectual synergy, but they also will result in $2.7 million in cost savings for the university." That story is reporting the continuation of a plan that began six months before the state announced its budget cuts. The chronology doesn't support your edit by several months.

Also, there is not, and never has been, an ASU campus in Payson.

Can you justify with citations the reason you added these two pieces of information back in? If not, I request that you leave them deleted. Rathfulman (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Regarding Payson, the text in the article doesn't state there is or has been an ASU campus in Payson, but rather there was an intention to create one: "... the university continued its campaign to expand the West and Polytechnic Campuses and establishing a set of low-cost, teaching-focused extension campuses in Lake Havasu City and Payson, Arizona." I've added a citation verifying that. (By the way, the project is still alive, according to this recent article http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/2015/sep/25/land-sale-two-weeks/).

As far as the point regarding "In response to these cuts ....", I've added two citations (and deleted the erroneous one). Contributor321 (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, 321. Thanks for taking the time. Rathfulman (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to provide a source on deleted things.

How do i provide a source on something i deleted. As in the case with Ben's Chili Bowl and Bill Cosby, I was actually the one who added this, but this was added by mistake since it was a defacement not done by Ben's chili bowl. Where do i provide a deleted source ?

I just noticed that the source at the end of the sentence has nothing to do with Ben's Chili Bowl but rather that Walt Disney World removed his statue. Why not just rewrite the sentence to reflect that? That takes care of the Ben's Chili Bowl problem while retaining encyclopedic information.Contributor321 (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for honorary degrees i thou ghetto ht it was common knowledge that Cosby probably has more than 100, but 57 can be proven since 1985. I wil provide that source, but you deleted the reason why the degrees were rescinded as well, is it not common knowledge that his degrees were rescinded because of allegations of sexual misconduct and/or immoral behavior or does that need to be sourced as well, that's a lot of sources especially s ince Cosby had his 10th honorary degree rescinded earlier today. I can source whatever but my main question is where do you source something that was incorrect to begin with (Ben's Chili Bowl ) ?Wwdamron (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Common knowledge" is not sufficient per WP:VERIFY, so please add a reliable source for the number of degrees. I simply undid your entire contribution because the claim of more than 50 degrees was unsourced. I don't have a problem with adding back the statement as to why the degrees were rescinded, so feel free to do so (no need to add more sources, since those degrees that have been rescinded in the article's list have sources that back up why). Contributor321 (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information and advisement.Wwdamron (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 19 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the University of Colorado Boulder page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Contributor321 (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University Seals issue

Hi, we are currently having an issue over whether to include the caption: "Seal of (Insert college name here)" over here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Threemonths. I saw you supported my edit. Would you consider supporting my argument that the documentation is in fact necessary on university wiki pages? They may mass revert all my edits otherwise. Thanks. Threemonths (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Threemonths: FYI this is clear canvassing. You should not rally other editors to support your arguments. Sam Walton (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

Please read WP:SOCK. I mentioned this because of WP:DUCK. If indeed you are engaging in sockpuppetry, your best move is to acknowledge it and agree to stop doing it. As noted before, we are happy to have editors who learn from their mistakes. Rklawton (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Are you sure it was meant for me (not someone else) and if so, why? I'm totally at a loss as to why I'd receive this message. Please explain. Thanks. Contributor321 (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You and Threemonths look a lot like a Duck. It could be coincidence, or it could be a Duck. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of Sock just in case. We've got folks who check for that sort of thing. They have access to additional tools that allow them to see IP addresses of registered accounts (like yours and mine). If they see two accounts using the same IP addresses along with a few other indicators, those accounts will end up blocked. That's why it's best (if Sock is the case), to say "oops, my bad" so we can take less drastic action and make things right. Live and learn. Some folks do, some folks don't. If you and Threemonths are different people, then you don't have anything to worry about - and you're just that much smarter about Socks. Rklawton (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You, sir, have impugned my honor and besmirched my good name. I demand satisfaction - tomorrow, be at the levee at noon. Your choice of swords or pistols.

The Nam Phi Sword. Since there's only one, we can take turns hacking away. Just to be sporting, you can wield it first. Rklawton (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kidding around aside, I'm not engaged in sockpuppetry and request that you engage whoever checks IP addresses of registered accounts and compare mine and Threemonths'. I don't like your accusation hanging over my head and would like my name cleared. Contributor321 (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do checks just to satisfy curiosity. Don't think of this as an accusation. If I were accusing you, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Think of this as a courtesy heads up and nothing more. I do understand this has been an awkward conversation, but since you haven't registered a private e-mail, that avenue was out. I did my best with what I had available. Rklawton (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stanford University people birth/death dates

I would like to discuss use of birth/death dates on the talk:List of Stanford University people page. I don't want to just revert since the overlinking removal is worth while. --Erp (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, what would you like to say? Contributor321 (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk page. Erp (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UCLA Bruins

UCLA defeated Southern Cal 10-7 to win the NCAA men's water polo Championship on Sunday. No. 1 UCLA Repeats as NCAA Champion, UCLABruins.com, December 6, 2015. See also 2015 NCAA Men's Water Polo Championship. The 113 NCAA championships was already mentioned in the University article under "Athletics". Socalphoto (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 9 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the California Polytechnic State University page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Contributor321 (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rider University may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

in 1993 as a 16 seed losing to Kentucky 96-52, and 1994 as a 15 seed losing to Connecticut 64-49)
red-eye-and-greg-gutfeld-show?intcmp=hpdm Joanne Nosuchinsky: 5 things you didn't know....]</ref>) DeMarius Copes (actor), [[Newsies]] First National Tour;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rider.edu/

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Contributor321 (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bill Cosby may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

5467|date= September 5, 2003|publisher= Baylor University|accessdate=September 19, 2009}}</ref>(Rescinded<ref>{{cite web |title=Baylor rescinds honorary doctorate given to Bill Cosby in 2003 |url=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Contributor321 (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got your message. I'm new to this, so I'm not sure how to leave you a message (you asked that I do). I've added the citations to my changes to Temple University. I hope I did this correctly.

December 2015 (UCLA)

Hi there. I see that we are disagreeing about what the UCLA introduction should be like. I am keeping in consistent with the material in the USC page. If you don't like the information, then feel free to take the corresponding information off of the USC page. But if you choose not to, please acknowledge that you are upholding a double standard. - Californiaborn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Californiaborn (talk • contribs) 05:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Deleted outdated and minor ranking from USC lead. Contributor321 (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

University of Chicago

Hello and Happy New Year! I was wondering if you'd look at User:Unitedreland contributions at the University of Chicago article? I, along others, have reverted this user's edit in the past for WP:BOOSTERISM (see the external link for more). I've gone ahead and told User:Lydhia to go to the Admin's noticeboard on my talk page. Feel free to chime in there, if you'd like! Thoughts? ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 23:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you as well! The disagreement about what constitutes "boosterism" has a long history at the University of Chicago, dating back to at least 2009 and discussed at length (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_Chicago#Prestigious_Ranking). Regarding the disagreement between User:Lydhia and User:Unitedreland, they need to discuss their points of view on the article's Talk page and not edit war (and I've left a template message to that effect on both of their Talk pages.) Other editors will weigh in and hopefully a consensus will emerge. My experience with the Admin's noticeboard has been they'll refuse to consider this situation if no good faith attempt has been made to resolve the issue on the article's Talk page. Contributor321 (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't see the two agreeing to anything any time soon. I see he's left a message on her talk page, so we'll see how this pans out. I've got them both on my list so hopefully this stops soon. My guess is that Lydhia will keep reverting and going to other users to help try and help solve their problem, like she's done in the past. I don't know much about the Noticeboard as I don't think I've been there, so thanks for the help on that! Appreciate it! ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 04:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed you just edited the University of Chicago article and reverted the first paragraph ranking edit I made. The sources all listed say the university is in the top ten. Previously, this was the status quo of the page. Also, you removed my grammar edit. I am going to bring my edits back. Cheers! PurpleDeskChair (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Laureates and Turing Awards

Hi! I indeed edited the number of Nobel prize winners for Stanford, according to the Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation. They do have listed out in detail the Nobel laureates for each school. Can I simply cite that page? Also, I changed the Turing Award winners of UC Berkeley according to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Turing_Award_laureates_by_university_affiliation. Is it good enough? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxk SiF4 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. The problem is with using Wikipedia as a source. According to WP:WPNOTRS: "Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose. Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that isn't citable with something else." So, it's necessary to meet the requirements of WP:VERIFY. Let me know if you have any further questions. Contributor321 (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bucknell and "Hidden Ivies" in lead

Can you stop by the Bucknell Talk page and comment on why this book merits mention in the lead? There's already a section there with some background info. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Contributor321 (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gunn High school

Please look closer and revert your edit. I moved the references to the footnote field of the infobox where they belong. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see that you'd moved them. Therein lies a problem, I think: tiny little numbers at the bottom of an infobox are obscure. I didn't know footnotes are supposed to be there, even after years of editing primarily high school, college and university articles, so after searching Wikipedia for confirmation of your assertion, found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_university. Sure enough, footnotes are shown at the bottom of the infobox. This is problematic, I believe, when university article infoboxes regularly contain 5-7 footnotes. How is the reader to know, for example, how accurate or current the # of students is when there is no footnote next to it? Sure, they might notice the tiny numbers at the bottom of the infobox, and perhaps take the time to scan through 5-7 footnotes looking for the appropriate reference, but having to do so is very clumsy compared to having the footnote right next to the data. And the same is true of editors updating information. So in conclusion, you're technically correct, but I believe the interests of readers and contributors are ill-served by strict enforcement of the template's location of footnotes. Contributor321 (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make an arguement to that effect at the template's talk page. My feeling is the infobox is primarily a graphic and should remain uncluttered. On this particular one, there are two separate sources for enrollment and staff, which I will probably replace with one citation to NCES later. That does lead to some confusion, I agree. But normally, the NCES cite is the only citation needed for an infobox. (when accreditation is present, a cite to AdvancED is also there, but unlikely to cause confusion). Most everything else in the infobox is uncontroversial info easily verified at the school website, which is an integral part of the infobox. If NCES is used for enrollment, which IMO it always should be (as so to provide an even methodology so valid comparisons can be made), the link never changes. All that needs to be updated is the access date. Of course YMMV. That's what makes the world interesting, right? John from Idegon (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: USC motto translation

Thanks for your evenhandedness in hearing the cases for the edits re: USC's motto before undoing them.

Re: "May" rather than "Let": The problem with "Let" is that it is ambiguous between the literal sense of an imperative meaning "Permit" and the figurative sense of a volitive or optative subjunctive. The latter doesn't have any non-periphrastic English equivalent except in longstanding "frozen" constructions such as "Bless you" or, for that matter, "[something else ending in K] you" in which the subject is either implicit/understood (as in the former case) or indeterminate (as in the latter case: presumably one wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole anyone to whom one would say that to begin with; the point is the at-least-metaphorical wish that someone or other do that to the person). The latter is the sense reflected in the motto; no orders are being issued to anyone (hence the Latin sentence's being in third-person subjunctive mood rather than imperative mood or the more polite second-person subjunctive mood). "May [subject]" as a verb at the head of a non-interrogative English sentence has only the volitive/optative sense; see, e.g., the "Irish Blessing" ("May the road rise to meet you," etc.).' Using "May" rather than "Let" makes this clear.
Re: "earned" rather than "earns": "Meruit" is past tense ("earned" / "has earned").

Note that the webpage does list the USC-supplied translation as "loose[]"...

96.36.104.238 (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Glasser

This is a courtesy note to let you know that I reverted your recent edit. Please, see my edit notes. See also Intercontinental ballistic missile, section Cold War. The prior Soviet flights were not armed and, therefore, not operational. Thanks for your attempted help with the article.

BestAlbiet (talk)Albiet

Thanks for getting in contact about our disagreement. Just to recap, you claim the SM-65 Atlas was the world's first ICBM, not the Soviet R-7, since "the R-7 became operational February, 1959. The SM-65 Atlas was declared operational January, 1959. Wikipedia Intercontinental ballistic missile, section Cold War. It survived later test, so the USAF declaration cannot really be doubted." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Otto_Glasser&action=history)

I have several problems with your claim. First: "It survived later test, so the USAF declaration cannot really be doubted" runs afoul of WP:SPECULATION, which says in part "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate." Second: the Intercontinental ballistic missile article says "The first armed version of the Atlas, the Atlas D, was declared operational in January 1959 at Vandenberg, although it had not yet flown. The first test flight was carried out on 9 July 1959,[7][8] and the missile was accepted for service on 1 September." So I think claiming the SM-65 is the world's first simply because it was declared so (without having flown) a month before the R-7 became operational, is false: what is relevant is when it actually became operational, not when it was declared to be. The R-7 became operational February 1959; the SM-65 Atlas July 1959, so the R-7 was the first. Contributor321 (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is the Bronx not a county?

I noticed that you changed my edit from "Bronx County" to "Bronx borough" and made the statement that the Bronx is a borough and not a county. I respectively disagree with you on this matter. Every borough of New York City is also one of New York State's 62 counties. The Bronx is both a borough AND a county. For your information, I first visited Rose Hill way back in 1960; that was a long time ago. I also spoke to Father O'Hare and Father McShane in person.

Anthony22 (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected - thank you. I do believe that even though it is a New York State county, it's more correct to state in the Fordham University article that "Fordham is ... based in the Bronx borough of New York City" instead of "Fordham is ... based in the Bronx county of New York City." Contributor321 (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UC Santa Cruz Student Media Organizations

I removed those few organizations from the list on the UC Santa Cruz wiki because they no longer exist. And it made the list look far too long for anyone to be interested in reading.I am a recent grad of UCSC and was involved in many of these organizations.

Reference errors on 28 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Indiana University Bloomington page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Contributor321 (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the endowment updates

I just wanted to give you a quick thanks for all the updating you are doing of endowment values with the new NACUBO numbers. That is really helpful! Best, Bahooka (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

stanford university

Those changes from www.stanford.edu to web.stanford.edu are because the university has split its web space and all www.stanford.edu/dept /group are now web.stanford.edu/dept or /group. There is no guarantee that the current redirects will continue. --Erp (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 14 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Tufts University page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Contributor321 (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Colgate University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carl Braun. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Contributor321 (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original name of University of Oregon

Hello,

Would you please explain why you removed the contribution of the original name of University of Oregon. The citation I provided states the original name of the university as "Oregon State University" on page 345.

Thank you.

ExistentialySpeaking (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realized my error and self-reverted 10 minutes before you posted this. Contributor321 (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ExistentialySpeaking (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Univ. of Washington

Hey! Since when did a reference violate WP:EL? I know it's a bare url, but at least they provided some sort of reference! 🍀 Corkythehornetfan 🍀 04:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I was working on too many articles at the same time - this was meant for another article. I've self-reverted. Contributor321 (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:UCSB logo in school colors.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:UCSB logo in school colors.png. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ☔️ Corkythehornetfan 🌺 21:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Hi. I am new to Wikipedia, so I am not completely sure how this works. I am personally affiliated to Palo Alto High School, and also happens to know the swim team coach. However, I did not know how to reference it. I do have the Paly website link here: http://www.paly.net/athletics/swimming-and-diving. Thanks for the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 许总 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just universities

Hi! For [User:Motivação]] it's not just U.S. universities; I've just made another dozen or so reversions tonight for the same error (see User talk:Motivação. Do you have any suggestions on what step to take if this particular error continues? — Neonorange (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There haven't been similar edits lately, so it looks like the editor understands. If not, there are additional steps to take in due course. Contributor321 (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

==Stop edit-warring George Washington out of the College of William & Mary piece.

Your Last Warning: Stop Edit-Warring!

Be advised: the edit behavior you exuding on the College of William & Mary page and similar university articles constitutes an egregious violation of Wikipedia procedure, and is one instance in a overarching pattern of poor editing habits. Apparently you need to be reminded that users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to attain a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.

The next time you engage in an edit war, a request to block you will be sent to wiki authorities. Rochester3000 (talk • contribs) 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Donald, does your thin-skinned, go-into-attack mode philosophy also apply to Wikipedia articles where there is a legitimate editorial conflict of interest? Please, don't suggest "although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," as a possible solution. Contributor321 (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper title italicization

I've found no Wiki policy either way to prohibit the older convention of italicizing just the (often archaically called 'newspaper' in the age of web) name without also italicizing the city name, specifically "New York Times" v. "New York Times". I know that 'cite web' templates make the older convention impossible as currently structured but I don't tend to use the templates (which I think is a different discussion which, also, is not governed by a prohibition). I refer to your otherwise acknowledged and I think all appreciated copy edit here on UC Davis. Any thoughts? Swliv (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've been a Wikipedia editor longer than I have, so I'm not going to profess superior knowledge. I relied on MOS:TITLE, which states the names of publications should be italicized, and since the Wikipedia article for The New York Times shows it as The New York Times I simply followed suit. I believe the city name in the title is part of the copyrighted name of the newspaper, so I think it should be included in italics. Contributor321 (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale is irrefutable and my inclination is at least verging on anachronism. For now I'm continuing with the older convention but I may have to reconsider. Thanks for your attention to, and help with, it. Swliv (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a directory?

What's your opinion on this article? Is it a case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY? IMO, it is, and I don't believe there are any articles like this for other universities... Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain as to whether it's a case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and a quick search turns up a number of similar-type articles (e.g. List of Michelin starred restaurants in New York City) in other subject categories. If you feel strongly the article should be deleted initiate the process outlined in WP:AFD, which will allow other editors to weigh-in. Contributor321 (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Not the answer I was looking for! lol... I'll think about it some more. Thanks for the input! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image Problem

Hi 321, are you also seeing two black lines on an image in the sustainability section of the UC Davis page? There is nothing wrong with the actual image so I don't know why they are there. Eden5 (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gone now, thanks to User:Corkythehornetfan's edit. Contributor321 (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in... I saw the heading and decided to be a (talk page stalker)! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 16:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 27 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

On the Woodside High School (California) page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
On the Capuchino High School page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fixed. Contributor321 (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No CSULA

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Once reverted, the burden is on you to a) discuss and; b) provide a reliable source that your edit is appropriate. One page from the English department does not represent the university.

See: http://www.calstatela.edu/brand/official-name-seal

"Previously used nicknames, including CSULA; CSU Los Angeles; Cal State Univ., Los Angeles; CSU, LA, or any other abbreviation are not acceptable." Seems pretty unequivocal to me. --Drmargi (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could've provided the source (http://www.calstatela.edu/brand/official-name-seal) with your 1st revert, per WP:RS, and saved both of us this back-and-forth! Contributor321 (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as you ignore over and over again, you were reverted. That places the WP:BURDEN was on you, not me. You don't discuss, you just find any old source that's good enough for you, and edit war from there. --Drmargi (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The university's own web page is "any old source"? Really? Looks like a reliable source to me. If it was outdated, all it took was for you to point to http://www.calstatela.edu/brand/official-name-seal in one of your reverts to have nipped this all in the bud. But no, you chose to keep reverting without bothering to provide a valid reason. Contributor321 (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Hi, Inre this [4] - I had no idea what you cocked up and instead of potentially messing something else up too I figured I'd revert where you can then fix your own errors,
It may be a better idea if you previewed your edits before hitting save,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I usually do preview my changes, but this one fell through the cracks. Appreciate your response. Contributor321 (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing Vandalism

You've been caught once again edit warring, vandalizing, and removing credibly sourced material from Wikipedia pages. This time it's the data on CSU and UC faculty workload which use the current references. They have not been updated since and their age is no reflection on their accuracy. Even the UC Regents believe the 1984 numbers are still accurate today (see page 6 on the link below) and even if they thought something completely different that would not change the fact that the references cited are the current official sources. http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/may13/e1.pdf

Your were previously caught vandalizing the UC Davis page scrubbing the credibly sourced historic admissions info. Your talk page history reveals many, many more instances of vandalism of credibly sourced material. Clearly you don't understand how Wikipedia works. I'll be reverting your recent vandalism and seeking a page or topic ban if it continues.--TDJankins (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind we have an editorial difference of opinion. You could assume good faith, yet you seem to default to considering an editorial difference as a personal attack. Wow, talk about thin-skinned. I could ask if you have abnormally small hands, I really could, but I won't, I won't ask whether your hands are abnormally small; no, I won't. BTW, I look forward to your setting the wheels in motion to ban me for "vandalism". Bring it on; I welcome the opportunity to defend myself.Contributor321 (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please update USNEWS World ranking at NYU. Now it's at 27. http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings?page=3 Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.238.110.58 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Contributor321 (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Also in the lead at NYU it should say Top 32, not Top 34. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.238.110.58 (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Contributor321 (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 18 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the University of California, Davis page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Contributor321 (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University

Hi,

As you have plenty of experience editing university articles on Wikipedia, I believe you can help me with this one. On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford#Notable_alumni T. E. Lawrence is listed under a section titled "Adventure and exploration". However, he was a politician (diplomat) who helped establish the Hashemite dynasties in what is today Jordan and Iraq and played a major role in establishing and administering the modern state of Iraq. He is the reason why we have Abdullah II of Jordan today. He is a major politician alumnus of University of Oxford, and as such shouldn't he be listed under "Politics" section?

Thank you so much.--Adam Parori (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although WP:UNIGUIDE is silent on the matter, I have seen notable alumni listed under 2 sections. For example, Theodore Roosevelt is listed under "Nobel laureates" and "Heads of state" on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harvard_University_people. Why not list T. E. Lawrence in both sections? If you get reverted bring it to the Talk section of the article, state your reasons, invite others to opine, and eventually a consensus should be reached. Contributor321 (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. Thanks again! Now I've another question, lol. I can't figure out why the "alma mater" parameter that I added to Infobox at T. E. Lawrence is not showing. Any clue?--Adam Parori (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Alma mater" is not defined in the template (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_person) used for T.E. Lawrence. I don't know why not, nor do I know how to remedy its exclusion. Sorry. Contributor321 (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist universities

Contributor321: Hi. The changes I made to the "List of Baptist colleges and universities in the United States" were from the Wikipedia pages from each of the schools I updated. For example, if you go to your Wikipedia page for Welch College, it say's it's a Free Will Baptist school (which it is). But it wasn't on the "List of Baptist colleges and universities in the United States". The same goes for the others I added or updated. The only one I'm not positive about is Wake Forest. It has a Baptist hospital and seminary, so wouldn't that make it a Baptist school? I'm a follower of Baptist theology, so that's how I got my interest. Thank you and best wishes, Phil

A common mistake, particularly among new editors, is to assume that referring to a Wikipedia article as a reliable source is acceptable. It is not, as Wikipedia itself makes clear in WP:CIRC: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources.... Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly."

As to whether Wake Forest is a Baptist school, the university itself reported the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina "has had no governing ties to Wake Forest since the 1980s. The university, which is autonomous in governance, established a voluntary, fraternal relationship with the convention in 1986." (Source = http://www.wfu.edu/wfunews/1999/111799h.htm) So I would say no, it is not a "Baptist school." However, it became "affiliated" with the Baptist church in 1986 and if if still is, it's most likely OK to note that (with a reliable source) in the Wake Forest University infobox, much like the Duke University infobox notes the university's affiliation with the Methodist Church.

Hope this helps, and welcome to Wikipedia. Contributor321 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor321: As I mentioned, I wasn't positive about Wake Forest. But I am about the others I updated. I'm a Baptist myself and am familiar with the other schools. Go to their websites and see for yourself. If you don't want to change them that's fine. I tried, that's all I can do. Peace to you, Phil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:FB01:B500:4DE7:C2EF:284:4940 (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add the other schools to the article, as long as you include a reference to a reliable source, NOT another Wikipedia article. Contributor321 (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

College updates

	College updates
	Doing a great job with college updates. I recently was on the ASU wikipedia page and noticed that the enrollment numbers have not been updated since 2014. When do you plan on the current data to be published? Bintzgolf (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the acknowledgement. Regarding ASU enrollment #s, you make it sound as if it's my responsibility to update them. It is not. You noticed they're outdated, what's stopping you from updating them? Contributor321 (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hey contributor 321.. I'm new at this, but you removed something that was kind of big.. here is an article with the citation if you want.. please put it back in. IT took me hours to do what I did, but I'll be a bit annoyed if that piee of information doesn't stay in there. http://thephoenix.com/boston/music/110963-billy-ruane-saying-goodbye-to-a-whirlwind/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by YesI'msure (talk • contribs) 05:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notables in lists need articles and sources

Your edit, restoring a non-notable without a source establishing a connection to the school makes mention of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). If you believe this individual meets that standard, write the article and establish notability based on reliable and verifiable sources. Then add an entry at Aragon High School establishing that he attended the school. Until then, all we have is your assertion that he's notable and your claim that he attended the school. Per WP:BRD, until the article is written and the required sources provided, we've taken a step back to await further developments. Feel free to discuss further at the article's talk page if you believe that consensus supports your position. Alansohn (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 1 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Bates College page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done (better late than never) Contributor321 (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OSU Page 7 FEB

Hello this is DaWulf2013 here. You recently removed some of my content I added to the Oregon State University page regarding the ROTC units at the school. I re-added the content but included references. All the information for the edit can also be found on the Oregon State University Army ROTC page. Thank you for improving my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaWulf2013 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia University and Nobel Prize Winning Affiliates

The ranking of Nobel Prize Winning Affiliates by University has long been debated on its respective page. The ranking and method of counting affiliates has been fleshed out in detail on the talk page. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the debate and how it's been fleshed out on the Talk page, the assertion in the article needs to be backed up by reliable sources in the article, which I see you've just done - thank you. Contributor321 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May be of interest?

Women at University Victuallers (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Your recent editing history at Baylor University shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Baylor University. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source was OK

University websites are considered reliable sources as they are academic in nature. I added a subjective source, please let me know if there is any more confusion. Thank you! Princetongirl516 (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing University of California, San Diego to University of California San Diego (no comma)

Hi Contributer321, you seem to be the resident expert on colleges and universities. Sometime in early 2016, the University of California, San Diego officially changed its name to "University of California San Diego" (the only such naming convention in the UC system), and recent press and secondary sources have begun to reflect this change. When will it be appropriate to begin changing every reference to the former name to the latter one? Similarly, when should the article be moved? Finally, is this a discussion that would be more appropriate for WP:WikiProject University of California or WP:WikiProject Universities? Thanks! TritonsRising (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to CSUDH

In your undo for CSUDH you say " Actually 7th according to source, which is not noteworthy enough for the lede; reduced seal to standard size." See once more the source, for 2018 year, see that Under Other Latino CSUDN ranks 3rd. Anyways its no longer in the lade.216.2.69.77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It ranks 3rd in terms of percentage, with 13.1%; it ranks 7th in terms of enrollment, with 2,061. Contributor321 (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Rice residential college page

Sorry to bother, but that was not a joke edit. McPlunkett has officially been recognized by the school. https://twitter.com/RiceDining/status/1149717691076362240 I am going to restore the info whether you like it or not. RANoah (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)RANoah[reply]

... for which you received an indefinite block for adding hoax material. Looks like the joke's on you, lol. Contributor321 (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

response

Hi Contributor321,

Sorry about the deletion. I accidentally reverted to the old version. I was looking to change some of the rankings as it didn't match up with the rankings others stated. I also read many articles that Bloomberg's ranking is quite flawed. I don't think it would be a good representation of the school. Feel free to add and undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uiui99900 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Separate Foundations in Endowment Data

I noticed that in a couple of cases in the endowment data a college will have their main fund and a separate "foundation" within the report. This is the case at least for the University of Maryland and Michigan State, probably others as well.

Thanks for pointing that out. I've self-reverted my Michigan State edit and added a clarifying note to the endowment amount. Will look at University of Maryland later. Contributor321 (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Contributor321:

Please do not revert my intermediate edit for Manhattan College. You give no reason for ygour revert. You have not seen what my final edit is. Please do not engage in a revert war. If you have problem with my final edit, please indicate why on the Talk page for Manhattan College. Thank you for your consideration.

--Thomasmeeks (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there was no indication of your "intermediate" edit while I was editing. My edit, by the way, did not revert (i.e. undo) any of your content and did include an edit summary, so I don't know what you're referring to. Contributor321 (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

I would much appreciate it if you would stop collapsing my bibliographic information. It serves no purpose I can see and it makes it less legible. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the merit of "uncollapsed" references - it's much easier to view each element of the reference. On the other hand, if all 158 references in this article were uncollapsed, it not only makes for an extremely long Edit page but also an unwieldy one: reading the content of paragraphs broken up by numerous uncollapsed references is a real chore. By the way, the references in most articles are collapsed. Contributor321 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UL Edits

The link that you provided shows that the school’s endowment is $199.5....’total assets and liabilities.’ I see nothing on that audit that shows it is $152. Also, you could’ve added something on it’s talk page, before unilaterally reverting my edit...twice. Unless you can point to me why the 199.5 figure is not correct then I will be forced to revert your edit again.

See p. 20 of source, where it shows "Endowment net assets, end of year" as $153,164,174 at June 30, 2018. Contributor321 (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Washington University location

Hi, you undid my edit of Washington University. Your reference to the school's website ignores the legal facts of where the campuses are actually located. It's postal address may be St. Louis, but postal addresses have no correlation with physical addresses. Especially in this case where the majority of the main campus is located in unincorporated St. Louis County (not in a municipality), so USPS assigns a postal city. Additionally, the website even highlights the fact that the main campus is in the 63130 zip code, which is the zip code for the suburb of University City. The postal city for 63130 can be either St. Louis or University City. I have reverted my edits, and please do not undo them as legally only the Medical Campus and North Campus is within the City of St. Louis, which I note. Please visit https://revenue.stlouisco.com/IAS/index.htm and search for 1 Brookings Dr. (parcel 18J320469) as validation of my information. Note: The City of St. Louis is not within St. Louis County. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob883 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Contributor321 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't collapse my citations

As you recently did at Oberlin College. They are much more legible with returns instead of spaces, and while it's true that it makes the edit view less legible, as you pointed out above, the edit view is not for reading. Use preview. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to reading, editing the content of paragraphs broken up by numerous uncollapsed references is a real chore. Again, the references in most articles are collapsed, for good reason. Contributor321 (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated college and university rankings

I don't know if we've ever come to a consensus or had a discussion about "outdated" college and university rankings. For what it's worth, my rule of thumb has been 10 years. I'm not objecting to your edit, just wondering if we should raise this issue with others to see if there's a consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - guidelines/consensus would be helpful. What's the appropriate venue for the discussion? Contributor321 (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WT:UNI is a good place to start with perhaps a wider RfC once the issue is well-defined and a clear proposal has been written. ElKevbo (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers in Template:Infobox university

Instead of adding the newspaper to the "Free" parameter of the Template:Infobox university in many articles, it might be better to start a discussion in the template's Talk page to see if it's a viable parameter. That discussion should also show if there is widespread consensus to add that information to the infobox at all. ElKevbo (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Contributor321 (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Villanova University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lowry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Contributor321 (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Thanks for cleaning up the Infobox university usage in many articles! ElKevbo (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of University of California, Santa Cruz people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ceph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Student Figures

As per the Harvard University website, student numbers include those from Harvard College and the Harvard Extension School, so are about 36,000 rather than 21,000. The autumn 2018 data cited, while a year more recent, is for Harvard College only (as it is from a Harvard College publication). If you can find more recent data for Harvard University as a whole, that would be preferable to use but short of that the 2017-2018 statistics are the most recent University-wide admissions data. EsEinsteinium (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette College College Bowl source

Dear contributor, You asked for a source for Lafayette College's participation in --and undefeated season -- in the College Bowl. That's easy. The source is right in the College Bowl article. OK? Bellagio99 (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not OK, since Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please provide a reliable source. Contributor321 (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a link to the official College Bowl page: [5] Bellagio99 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Contributor321 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haas School of Business, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berkeley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Contributor321 (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated edit war

The statement which states that nanda baba is kshatriya is totally wrong, infact he was chief of cow-herdering gwalas and this is mentioned in article itself. Unfortunately, someone had added kshatriya on the basis of wrong source, and this also violates our hindu mythology he was chief of gwala. It is being said in mahabharat and ramanand sagar shree krishna episode for detail information you can watch ramanand sagar shree krishna episode 13 , it clearly says that he was gwala. But, someone is reverting without even watching it. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deokalimuskabad - Your dispute with other editors (for which I tagged all of you for edit warring) is, as I understand it, whether Nanda Baba was just a "gwala chief" or actually a "Kshatriya" and a "King". What none of you has cited is a reliable source - see WP:VERIFY for why one (or more) is necessary - which would resolve the issue. Contributor321 (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The statement which states that nanda baba is kshatriya is totally wrong, infact he was chief of cow-herdering gwalas and this is mentioned in article itself. Unfortunately, someone had added kshatriya on the basis of wrong source, and this also violates our hindu mythology he was chief of gwala. It is being said in mahabharat and ramanand sagar shree krishna episode for detail information you can watch ramanand sagar shree krishna episode 13 , it clearly says that he was gwala. But, someone is reverting without even watching it. Now, you are saying that none of us has reliable source then remove the sentence,don't write anything, actually he was a gwala chief it is written in article itself, and gokul was under the ruling of mathura kingdom, means kansa was the king, nanda was just a mandaladhish. Please, remove the sentence and be neutral on that issue. Deokalimuskabad (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Want to add category

How do I add the category "Universities producing US presidents"? Can you help? Tissueboy (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know how, but you can ask for help at the Teahouse. Contributor321 (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

U of I

§ Hi, I wish to stress a few points.

Can you please explain this? Rhodes Scholars, Marshall Scholars and Fulbright scholars are not as important as Nobelists. Besides, there is no source to assert that two alums of U of I are Rhodes Scholars. Rhodes Scholarship is awarded by Oxford University for graduate studies. As per Shanghai Ranking, Oxford isn't as highly ranked as Harvard or MIT. Why should we be giving so much importance to that scholarship? The section at the top of the page should be stating all the Nobelists and not just alums. That's the standard in many university pages. You can check the pages of Harvard University (160) and University of Chicago (100). Ber31 (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, Rhodes, Marshall and Fulbright scholars are not as important as Nobelists, but they are still important in their own right. The Rhodes scholarship is among the most famous international scholarships, as well known (if not more so internationally) as the Fulbrights, and certainly more than the Marshalls. You're right, there is no source for U of I Rhodes Scholars, nor is there for NASA astronauts, and Fulbright and Marshall scholars, so I've deleted those also. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. Contributor321 (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MIT

§ Hi,

Don't you think that MIT page is too large? I would say we should have 14 images. You added Bernanke back to the page. I think Scholz should go. What do you think? Ber31 (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the page has too many images; other schools of the same caliber even have more (see e.g. Harvard University, Cal Tech). I'd also leave Scholz in: it's informative to see that notable MIT grads aren't just mostly engineers and scientists. Contributor321 (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with 15 images. Thank you. Ber31 (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop collapsing citations

As you have just done under Florida State University. Not only is there nothing gained by so doing, except a trivial one byte per line, much is lost. It makes it much harder for any future editor to examine the citation, something I'm doing all the time. If you know of a reason or a written policy supporting these collapses I'd much like to know what it is. Please respond. deisenbe (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my 11/5/19 response, above, for the 1st time you asked. Same still holds. Probably 99% of editors use collapsed citations, you are in the very distinct minority. If you can point to a policy showing un-collapsed citations are recommended, I'd appreciate it. Contributor321 (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overly bureaucratic

Can you allow me to edit the page Harvard University for five minutes? I must say that this website is overly bureaucratic. You have a point. The CV will be removed. The Nobel Foundation source conforms that Doudna earned a Harvard PhD and also won the Chemistry Nobel Prize. Can I removed this[6] from my Talk Page? Ber31 (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Look at this contribution:[7]. Now can I removed this[8] from my Talk Page? Ber31 (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's your Talk page you're free to remove it if you feel the need to do so, according to the guideline at WP:REMOVED. Contributor321 (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking guidance for user

Hi there! I've noticed the user USA Eagle01 adding multiple tables containing very detailed and granular rankings to a large number of universities/schools (example here). In many cases, you had updated these rankings shortly before this user's edits. The edits don't seem to conform to typical formatting for this type of information but I'm having trouble finding a reference for that. I thought I would bring their contributions to your attention in the hope that they might benefit from your experience. DKSwims (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth College Featured article review

I have nominated Dartmouth College for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Notre Dame de Namur University logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Notre Dame de Namur University logo.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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]