The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nice job, with just one issue. The second clause of the first sentence reads ,"fraternities and sororities play an important role in student life at W&J." Unless I missed it, the web page that is cited does not explicitly say so. You might want to explicitly state activities, and if they can be quantified, even better. This seems like a great opportunity to state the full agenda of Greek activities, and not just parties. The end of the first paragraph reads, "All members of fraternities and sororities must pay the $100 "Greek Membership Fee," a levy designed to fund leadership seminars and other educational events for Greeks." What are the seminars and activities? A brief mention of all Greek programming in the first sentence, followed by a more fleshed out description in the section si what I'd like to read, but others might feel different.
Thanks for the suggestions, I'll take a look at incorporating them in a few days.
About the "important role" question, I kinda think that statement is fairly inferred from the fact that over a third of the campus is Greek. To me, it mostly functions as a topic sentence.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean about mentioning the full array of activities from the Greek system. I've been thinking about it for a few days not. I'm not sure that getting into that much detail is really worth it. I mean, everyone knows that frats perform philanthropy, as well as party. To me, the most valuable part of that section is a discussion of the 4 frats that were founded there, as well as a discussion of the ones that didn't survive the union. I am afraid that getting into issues of quantifying/describing the philanthropy would open a can of worms. How can that possibly be quantified? Dollar amounts? Hours? Plus, any discussion of that would quickly turn into a big jumble of factoids, like "In 2005, the Delta Tau Chi spent 100 hours helping the homeless. In 2006, they adopted a highway." And, that would go on for each chapter, forever. Plus, there is a question about reliably sourcing that stuff. I don't know about your experiences, but some fraternities take that more seriously that others, who might not report their hours reliably. (I can tell you from experience, that getting falldown drunk while performing "maintenance" at a local playground counts towards those volunteer hours.)--GrapedApe (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something else that I'd like to see, and if you like the idea I can work on it over the weekend if you want the help, is a collapsible table for the Greek system at W&J. NYCRuss☎14:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about the collapsible table idea, but I don't think that would work very well for this article. However, I have been looking around other college's pages, and I found this: Dartmouth College Greek organizations. If you're interested in getting more detail for the fraternities and sororities, that would be a good format for a split page. Right now, I'm not inclined to create such a page myself. But if you do, let me know if you want some help.--GrapedApe (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I suggested collapsable tables is because regular tables would take up a lot of page space. I'm not prepared to put in the work for a separate page either. Just let me know if you need help with something specific. NYCRuss☎18:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning to improve the wording, the NPV and the sourcing, adding more information as Historial Membership, Envents, etc... I can move the article into my sandbox to do it. Now, I read the notability criteria. This is a chapter of a fraternity. I was planning on creating articles for other chapters as well. Is this artcile non-notable for the information provided or for itself, as a regular chapter of the organization?--Coquidragon (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely difficult for a chapter to meet the notability requirements. So much so that every such article that has been created has been deleted, or is up for deletion. The only type of exception has ben articles for chapter houses where the house has been declared a landmark, but even then those articles are about the house, and not about the chapter. NYCRuss☎10:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just an FYI, per Title IX classifications, any single-gendered GLO is a "social" glo, regardless of how much volunteering they do. A service fraternity or sorority has a very distinct legal connotation, and is required to be co-ed by Title IX law. Social fraternities and sororities were granted an exemption to allow them to remain single gender. Please do not revert this again, at least not without some discussion first. Thanks! Justinm1978 (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Title IX is not the definitive classifier of fraternal organizations. If an organization belongs to a professional confederate group, and to a similar social group, it is a professional group. NYCRuss☎20:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to discuss this out on either the template talk page or the Fraternity and Sorority WikiProject page before declaring what is and is not acceptable for the "type" field. You may have your opinions, but consensus rules the day. Currently, consensus indicates that "type" is either the GLO's Title IX classification and/or Baird's Manual of Fraternities as being the definitive source for what that field contains, not what a group or its members declare it to be. I have reverted your change to Sigma Phi Delta as you are not providing a reliable, third party source to back up your claim that this single-gender GLO is not a social fraternity, which again consensus has covered how this is classified. Please do not revert without disucssing more. Justinm1978 (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being that I was one of the parties involved in this, I think I know what I'm talking about. Here's the mediation results: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-29 Infobox Fraternity Consensus was achieved and agreed upon. Your reverts are bordering on bad faith and an unwillingness to follow established standard. Please talk it out before making a controversial change, otherwise your next revert will be a violation of WP:3RR, and can result in you being blocked from editing. Justinm1978 (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you wait until now to provide me with that link? Anyway, I read it, and it sounds like Baird's, and not Title IX, is the agreed upon standard. If that is the case, then it is not my edits that are being conducted in bad faith. NYCRuss☎12:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because that should be in the template talk history, I'm surprised that it's not, hence why I'm providing it to you now. You still haven't proven where they are listed as professional, when their pages list them as social. Justinm1978 (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I get home tonight, I'll provide the citation from the most recent edition of Baird's, which explicitly lists Sigma Phi Delta as professional. NYCRuss☎13:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is also some discussion on this matter on the article talk page that may help clarify why we're currently going with social on this. Your input there would be appreciated. Justinm1978 (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seal & Serpent
Hey I need help referencing. You keep deleting things I put on the Seal & Serpent page but I'm a brother editing the page as representative of our fraternity... help? N1c20m90 (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should only post stuff that is sourced and independently verifiable. When you post an external link (external links should not be placed in an article) to a Bob Saget show, and that external web page does not even mention your fraternity, it looks like very blatant spam. Treat this like a term paper and you can go far. I'd first read WP:FIVE. Then, since the Seal & Serpent page's biggest problem seems to be citations, you might want to read WP:CITE. That should get you on solid ground. NYCRuss☎00:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phi Gamma Delta Vandalism
Listen you prick, you asked for a discussion and I gave you one, which you DIDN'T respond to. I'm going to report you to wiki for assuming that you think you know what's best, when you're not even in the fraternity that you're disrespecting. You're not even man enough to have your "email" option turned on in your toolbox. PATHETIC.
98.112.220.197 (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a chill pill and actually read to what you responded. I didn't ask for a discussion. I simply reverted your vandalism. As far as being a man, those are big words from someone who is hiding behind an IP address. NYCRuss☎00:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Russ, the warning you gave this user actually did ask them to go to the talk page and try to reach a consensus, which they did. And they did so with very colourful language; I didn't know that you were "King of all Nazis"! That's a very lofty title for someone so new to vandal-fighting. :P —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah!!! I need to read those templates more carefully. Yea, I became "King of all Nazis" after my bar mitzvah. NYCRuss☎01:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Russ. Since you spend a lot of your time fighting vandals, I gave your account rollback powers, which can be used from your watchlist or a history page to quickly revert cases of blatant vandalism. You can go to Wikipedia:Rollback feature to read up on how this power works. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello NYCRuss, I hope you're having a good Thursday! Thanks for your note regarding your FLC. Typically, although not prescriptively, Dabomb or I will look for around four votes of support, and we're happy to allow an FLC, as long as it's on track, to linger for some time in order to gather further reviews. I could suggest that you contact a few of our regular reviewers (e.g. Giants2008, Mm40, NMajDan, KV5, Staxringold, Arsenikk, Jujutacular, Ruslik_Zero...) to see if any of them would be prepared to weigh in with some more comments, or better still, support. I don't consider a request for a review anything like canvassing, so don't worry about that. If there's anything more I can do to help, don't hesitate.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely do a peer review first. Go to Wikipedia:Peer review and read the "nomination procedure" section about how to start it. Looking at the Alpha Phi Omega list, I immediately see some issues:
the tables are not evenly lined up
not every entry is referenced
members without a Wikipedia page will need every aspect of notability referenced
the presence of question marks, naturally, raises questions about the verifiability of the information
for referenced sources that are print publications, ISBN, ISSN, and/or OCLC numbers should be included
I think there are two issues there, first that there aren't pictures for people in each of the groupings and that there may be a flowing value in the table. I'm not sure how to deal with either, I'd rather leave pictures with the grouping that they are in.
Doria and Perkins should be removed since they are not referenced. Both of them came through personal communications, but that's not good enough...
Unfortunately, for the brothers of APO-Philippines, that may be more difficult. A Governor of a US State in the last 10 years will almost certainly have an English Language wikipedia page, a Governor of a Philippines State within the last 10 years probably won't have one either on the English Language page or the various PI language Wikipedias. Also, any idea how to gauge whether a University President is or is not notable?
The question marks are that the Chapter isn't known. For example in at least one of the references in that regard, the reference from the National Magazine is something like "Honorary brother Michael Smith, President of foobar corporation was the keynote speaker at this year's National Convention".
I'll see what I can do on getting the ISSN for the Torch and Trefoil. That should take care of most of the issues there, I think.
I added him. If you could get the date ranges for terms of service as editor-in-chief of The Olympian, President of the University of Washington Board of Regents, and Executive Director of the Port of Tacoma, I'd appreciate it. That is part of the standard used that got the list to FL status. NYCRuss☎17:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only one have is 1918-1921 for Port of Tacoma, it's in the reference. He became editor in chief of The Olympian in 1890 (also referenced) but I don't know how long he stayed. The previous versions of the article said he was on the the Board of Regents from 1914 to 1919, but it was completely unreferenced and probably wrong, because some sources list him as a Regent still in 1921. Voceditenore (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those dates. Looks like he was on the Board of Regents from 1910[1] until 1922 [2]. Looks like he was editor at the Olympian from 1891 until 1892.[3]NYCRuss☎21:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you found the rest. The Puget Sound reference may slightly off as the start date at the Olympian. One of my refs gives his start date as 1890, but it's not really important. I must say it's been an uphill battle trying to keep completely made up stuff out of the article. At one point, when I had nearly finished it, what should appear but this. Sigh! By the way, no need for talkbacks, I've got your page on watch. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. We appear to be in agreement. I tried to bend over backwards to be nice to Newbies. I'd have felt a 'lot better if there were some edits on the Long Island Rail Road or Freemasonry (even though that appears to be a COI). As you said, a great possibility of a single issue account.
Any more ideas on this person? Maybe the fact that I did his work for him and found some probably referencable locations (see the KS talk page) will make him happy.Naraht (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that so, Russ? If my editing the Freemasonry article would be a COI solely because I am interested in Freemasonry, what should one make of so many Greek editors (yourself included) controlling the content of Greek fraternity articles? KappaSigmaAEKDB (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw (and responded) to your report at UAA regarding this username. I am curious as to why you think it is a username violation (i.e. which part of the username policy you think it violates) Thanks! TNXMan17:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Username is Misleading". (This applies to the KappaSigmaAEKDB).
Now that the contributions log for KappaSigmaAEKDB seems to be wiped out, it is difficult to demonstrate why I think that the name was inappropriate. Basically all that KappaSigmaAEKDB posted was to Kappa Sigma, particularly about AEKDB, and refuse to provide a source that meets Wikipedia's standards. I believe that the name was 1) misleading, 2) offensive, as part of Wikipedia's criteria for offensive is "making harmonious editing difficult or impossible" and 3) disruptive, as it seems to me to be a clear case of trolling. Now that the name has changed, it is water under the bridge. NYCRuss☎21:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Russ—Thanks for the barnstar. I've been watching you put in a lot of hard work on the article. I'm glad to have been of service to you and your efforts. NielsenGW (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to tell you, that second paragraph tortured me. It is scary how much that I've forgotten about writing since my school days a few decades back. I've really developed a respect for copy edit skills, and for yours in particular. NYCRuss☎21:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delta Zeta
This has been hashed out by editors and the consensus is that it belongs in the lede. Per WP:LEDE:
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. [emphasis added]
Clearly Wikipedia guidelines encourage the mention of this notable controversy in the lede. The lede, by definition, is redundant to the article text. Thoughts? ∴ Thereforecogito·sum22:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I was doing some rapid-fire anti-vandalism editing, I reacted a bit too quickly when I saw the "section blanking" tag. NYCRuss☎21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My edits to Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh were in good faith. I request you to review your revert ([4]) once again, as i am guessing you have done it in a hurry. sikhsiyasat.net is a web site that sees everything from the Sikh point of View. Therefore i think it do not conform to the Reliable Sources policy of Wikipedia. Moreover, there were many "opinions" given based on source, not facts. I again request you to carefully review that revert of yours once again. Thank you in advance for your time.117.97.60.110 (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you need to slow down and look at what you are reverting.[5] You removed a maintenance tag and restored a reference to an unreliable source. It would help if you didn't automatically assume that IP edits are invalid and/or vandalism. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, you shouldn't assume that I assume anything. I don't automatically assume that IP edits are not legitimate. It just so happens that most of the edits that need to be reversed are anonymous edits. In this instance I did make a mistake, but seeing as I'm human, I'll probably make mistakes again. Second, you need to fill out an edit summary so that your actions carry more credibility.NYCRuss☎15:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you made two errors in one day on edits by a single IP editor (me) doesn't speak well of your overall accuracy. You shouldn't base your decisions on edit summaries - far too often they lack clarity or are deliberately deceptive. Instead look at the text being changed. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Great Joy of Serving Others
Russ, I apologize for not helping you out more with the recent Phi Kappa Psi page improvements, I've kind of fallen out of the habit of working on Wikipedia. I hope to get more involved again soon though. I'm glad you were finally able to do all that was needed to get the Phi Kappa Psi page to where I had hoped it would be (esp. with proper location/existence of the "controversies"). Actually, your work on that page, the newly-featured list of Phi Psis, and even the list of Wikipedians who are Phi Psis is absolutely incredible. Thank you so much for all your hard work and valuable time, and please know that it has not gone unnoticed. Indiana Epsilon salutes you!
Amici,
Gavin...
Triberocker (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin, I'm glad that you are happy with the work. As far as chapter controversies go, it is my belief that if all of the Phi Psis who edit on Wikipedia were mindful of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV, those issues would have been resolved years ago. Following a little protocol goes a long way. I'm particularly proud, as should be expected, of List of Phi Kappa Psi brothers. That took a lot of work, but learning about many of our brothers, and getting that featured list star, made it worth it. Also check out List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters and colonies, which will probably be the next featured list candidate, and List of Phi Kappa Psi Grand Arch Councils, which should be nominated after this summers GAC, when I'll return from Orlando with pictures to help explain GACs. I'd like for us to get those three lists to featured status, then get the main article promoted as a featured article, and then the William Henry Letterman and Charles Page Thomas Moore articles promoted to good article status. At that point, we'll be able to get Phi Kappa Psi promoted as a featured topic. This will involve a lot of work, but I believe that it can be done. The help that I most need is with the Letterman and Moore articles, which might be the most difficult because of WP:NOR. V et V, NYCRuss☎11:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, one of those weird diff things! Looks like I missed an extra "1" at the end of the url. Fixed the above link. ^ JamieS93❤14:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
easy on the warnings
I noticed in several cases you are warning users for WP:Vandalism when none has occurred, and spam links when they really don't appear to be spammy. Please take a break and rethink what you are warning for. I see some pretty WP:BITEy behavior. Toddst1 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have been misusing your rollback privileges to revert many of these edits that were not blatant vandalism. If it was one or two, I would be discussing the issue with you. In this case, since I see wholesale misuse of the privilege, I have removed it. Toddst1 (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at this earlier revision of that page. Some questions about that. First, are these the "spam links when they really don't appear to be spammy", and if so, why does this fall short of the threshold for spam? How should that have been handled?
The addition of links appeared to be good-faith attempts to improve the article that added perhaps inappropriate ELs and certainly in the wrong place. However, it's pretty clear that that person wasn't trying to be disruptive. The Palin thing is at worst unsourced material, and we have no indication that the edits were meant to be disruptive or weren't made in a good faith attempt to improve the article. The editor may have been trying to further their POV in this case, but on the POV scale of editors to that article, this was extremely mild. Toddst1 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, good observation on linking 130.76.32.19 (talk·contribs) and 98.247.103.99 (talk·contribs) but I'd have to conclude that one is a home internet access through Comcast and one is work email at Boeing. That is allowed. Better would be to try to engage the user and get them to register. FWIW, if you understand what I was saying above and make sure it won't happen again, I'll turn your rollback back on.Toddst1 (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to explain that. Please keep my rollback feature turned off for now. I'm not sure if I have a clear understanding about where the line is yet. I'll read up on it, and then articulate when I believe that it is appropriate, and when it is not. If I get it right, turning it back on will be appreciated. NYCRuss☎17:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
greetings, re your recent edits on this page, it seemed to me that these links you tagged as needing refs were sources themselves. For example, when the article mentioned there were 4 members who were rhodes scholars, it was followed with links to pdf files of sources that corroborate the claim. Nevertheless, these were tagged as needing refs. Just curious what qualifies as a source - those references looked pretty solid, at least to my eye
kind regards,
D74 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolemite74 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thanks for posting the question. Those external links were turned into footnotes as per WP:CITE, and they still require cleanup to meet standards. More importantly, roughly the first half of Zeta Phi is without a single citation. This is particularly important for this article because articles about fraternity chapters usually get deleted on Wikipedia, due to WP:ORG. What makes the Zeta Phi article different is that it also about a former regional fraternity. This aspect is not referenced and it needs to be. NYCRuss☎10:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About the Phi Psi controversies section
And particularly, this comment of yours:
I placed this back because it has not gone through formal process like an RfC.
Formal process is not always needed in the course of editing an article. There was discussion about the section, and since there was no objection raised to removing the text, that's de facto consensus to remove the text. RfC would only be necessary if there were an ongoing dispute about whether to include the text, and if prolonged discussion did not produce a clear consensus on how to proceed. I've left the RfC open, but I've BOLDly removed the text from the article and explained my reasoning in the talk page. I don't see any reason to leave the text in the article—although, as I noted in the talk page, I'll be glad to restore the text for the duration of the discussion if anybody does present a reason to keep it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes to this article since you supported it. here. Just wanted you to have a chance to voice your opinion on any of the changes. Cheers!--GrapedApe (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
The stub has been expanded, cleaned up, and sourced, and is now somewhat better. The nom has withdrawn his nomination based upon the improvements. Might you wish to assist in expanding the Scott L. Schwartz article section about his work in the 1970s and 80s as a pro wrestler? I found some sources and listed them on the article's talk page, but do not know the best way to incorporate them for a wrestler. Thanks, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.22:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you stated on the now named Mets-Yankees rivalry discussion page, WP:AND seems appropriate. Would you be able to do this for the other rivalry articles the Yankees are apart of? I am not sure how redirects work or I would do it myself. Thanks. Arnabdas (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
