Contributor321, you are invited to the Teahouse
Regarding endowment data
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.
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)
The Cal Poly Barnstar
Awarded to Contributor321 for working on Cal Poly Pomona-related articles.
--15:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
- Noted and fixed. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Contributor321 (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- students' primary focus of study, but commonly include some combination of i) a senior thesis, ii) written examination, and iii) oral examination. The oral examination is either a defense of the student's senior thesis, or is
- <!-- do not add names here UNLESS they are notable (meaning, they have their own Wikipedia page that meets notability guidelines. No redlinks. If you
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited University of California, San Diego, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Asian, Caucasian and Filipino (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
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)
- 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)
- I have assumed WP:GOODFAITH in my previous disagreements with you, when you were rightfully corrected on them: . 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)
- 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 ) and has been involved in editing disputes with at least 15 other editors according to . Contributor321 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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)