User talk:Ckere

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello Ckere, and Welcome to Wikipedia!New-Bouncywikilogo.gif

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Ckere, good luck, and have fun.Aboutmovies (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of University of Oregon alumni 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here[edit]

Hey Ckere

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for correcting my embarrassing typo! ElKevbo (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to Oregon[edit]

Not sure what you were trying to accomplish by reverting my edit and falsely calling it vandalism, but my edit accurately reflected the sources I added. Nothing I stated was false. Check the sources yourself, OSU is larger, is more selective, and does in fact have more research money than all other OUS universities combined, as the sources all state. If you want to debate this you should discuss this on the talk page. VegaDark (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You are the only one to try and bring this up, so I will leave the discussion on my page.

The issue, primarily, is the entire shift in tone of the section. The previous version shared roughly equal length for the two university, starting off with the more prominent flagship. Your version gives heavy emphasis to the land-grant school and barely a mention to the flagship.

Aside from that:

  • Your claim about funding is false. You're probably thinking about research funding, in which OSU has the slight edge due to having engineering, agriculture, and pharmacy schools. UO has a much higher operating budget than any other school in the state.[1] $865,425,065 vs $774,115,998.
  • UO is the more selective university. UO admits 73.9% of students, while OSU admits 79.4%.
  • Universities are not "rated". USNWR is often seen as a more holistic ranking system than ARWU. It is the more commonly cited publication for these kinds of things, so it makes sense to give it more weight.
  • Your edits about enrollment figures are entirely correct. Ckere (talk)
  • First,the proper way to deal with an editing dispute is not to use the revert function or call my edits "vandalism." Second, all my information was correct, and OSU has the edge in every category that Wikipedia reliably cites as criteria for the "flagship" university. The opening for OSU describes it as a flagship as well. Let's take a look at the facts: You state that my claim about funding is false: You're absolutely right that I was talking about research funding, which is exactly what my edit stated. I made no mention of operating budget. "The university receives more funding for research, annually, than all other public higher education institutions in Oregon combined." This is the same source I used in my edit. Second, the claim that OSU is more selective is backed up by the source I provided. OSU's average GPA for incoming freshman was higher than UO's. "This year, OSU raised the bar slightly, attracting freshmen with an average high school grade-point average of 3.59, up from 3.57 the previous year. UO’s freshman class fell a bit to 3.58, down from 3.6 last year." OSU admits higher qualified students, on average. Is that not the definition of more selective? If a small, poor quality school only allows in 10 out of 100 applicants, and their average GPA was a 2.0, that would make them one of the most selective universities in the country by that logic. "More selective" in an admissions context means higher qualifications for the student. Third, yes, universities are ranked. Wikipedia uses 4 national rankings and 2 global. OSU is ranked higher than UO in 4 of those 6, although 2 of those 4 overlap as national and global, hence my mentioning that OSU is ranked higher by 3 organizations. Your reverts to only show OSU is ranked higher in one is what is POV and biased here. Finally, you admitted that some of my edits were completely correct. Then why did you revert them? You just admitted to reverting completely correct and properly sourced information.
Now, let's take a look at "flagship" criterion according to what is reliably sourced in Wikipedia's section on Flagship#Education. "The College Board, for example, defines flagship universities as the best-known institutions in the state, noting that they were generally the first to be established (Advantage: OSU) and are frequently the largest (Advantage: OSU) and most selective (Advantage: OSU if student qualifications is the criterion, advantage UO if percent of applicants admitted is the criterion), as well as the most research-intensive (Advantage: OSU) public universities. These schools are often land-grant, sea-grant, or space-grant research universities" (Advantage: OSU). UO even dropped their flagship claim in 2013. Here's a source stating OSU is a flagship university. You stated that the "radical shift in tone reeks in bias." What was biased is what you reverted the page back to and is not backed up by the sources. I am of course willing to work with you on the wording, but if anything your catch-all revert, calling what I did vandalism, and perpetuating the retention of the extremely biased and contrary to sources section that was up there is far more akin to making an edit due to a college rivalry. I hope that you can propose some acceptable changes, otherwise I'll be involving a 3rd party since I don't intent to get into a revert war with you. VegaDark (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Information icon Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)


Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Will do, I know I get lazy sometimes. Ckere (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of Oregon, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nike, Joseph Robertson and William Murphy. 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) 09:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

People section for UO[edit]

I noticed that you changed the notable alumni/faculty+staff section to a more generic people section. I think it is kind of redundant as there are already articles for those lists that you created. What are your thoughts?--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I was recently discussing this topic with a well-known editor of university articles, who suggested following the format of the featured article University of California, Riverside. I agree it's redundant, but we both thought the gallery format was too simple and unskimmable -- I can't think of any other equally or more viable alternatives. I also edited Oregon State University to follow the same format. Ckere (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you've been doing some research. Fair enough. Do you think it would be better if the list was more consistent, i.e. only two or three names for each category. You could choose the top two articles with the most references and go from there. Or is that too arbitrary. It seems kind of weird how some categories have way more people listed than others.-- (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

University of Oregon School of Architecture and Allied Arts
added a link pointing to Lawrence Hall
University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication
added a link pointing to Allen Hall

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Oregon welcome[edit]

Oregon DEM relief map.png

Welcome to WikiProject Oregon! If you'd like, you can add the WP Oregon userbox to your user page using this code: {{User WikiProject Oregon}}. Check out the ongoing and archived discussions at WT:ORE and be sure to add the page to your Watchlist. If you are new to Wikipedia, it's a good idea to browse through the core principles of Wikipedia as well. The project home page at WP:ORE has many useful links to get you started. The recent changes and recent discussions links will display recent edits on articles within the project's scope. Welcome!

Valfontis (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Valfontis! I'm excited to help further the cause. I mostly edit Oregon university-related articles, but I'm willing to branch out too.Ckere (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)