Talk:Chapman University School of Law

ABA Approved

I changed the article to read that Chapman is the only fully ABA approved law school in Orange County, Ca, because the other two, Western State and Whittier, are either provisionally accredited or on probation. It merits a mention, but dunno if it is mentioned in the proper place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.120.227.194 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its fine to say that its the only fully ABA approved law school in Orange County, but I don't think it should talk about the other two --if anything it makes Chapman sound like it has an inferiority complex, which I doubt it does considering the issues its competition in having. --Bobak 15:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added more information, to provide a more complete picture of this University, on a level with other law schools in the area, such as Loyola Marymount. 10/12/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperion357 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you've added several paragraphs of advertising and POV, plagiarized directly from the Chapman website. In accordance with Wiki standards, it has been removed. --Eleemosynary 19:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Updates to Page

I've added more information about this university, correct to the best of my information, about this university -- trying to bring it on track with neighboring, comparable, law schools Hyperion357 07:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you've added several paragraphs of advertising and POV, plagiarized directly from the Chapman website. In accordance with Wiki standards, it has been removed. --Eleemosynary 19:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You stated:

No, you've added several paragraphs of advertising and POV, plagiarized directly from the Chapman website. In accordance with Wiki standards, it has been removed. --Eleemosynary 19:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Advertising?

Everything now stated is true.

POV?

What statements are subjective in nature? Point them out, and I will edit them. To my ::knowledge, everything stated is objectively true, and, hence, no POV.

Plagiarized?

I'm concerned about the paucity of information about this fine institution, and have received permission to draw from their website.

If you have permission, and citation, then its *not* plargiarized.

-- Also, this is not a newly formed account. I've had it for years -- although I use it sparingly.Hyperion357 00:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You are fooling no one. Expect admin intervention shortly. --Eleemosynary 02:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What for? Providing more substantive info than the article had before? I'm *trembling*!  ;-/. What is your beef anyway? Admittedly some of the formatting is not optimal -- I'm still sorting through all the documentation for Wikipedia formatting, etc. but I have received official approval to use info from their website, and I have provided references -- therefore, its not plagiarization. To be "plagiarized", the source has to be unacknowledged and unapproved. Neither of those applies. Hyperion357 10:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the basics of Wikipedia. You are removing properly sourced info and replacing it with POV advertising. That's vandalism, and has been reported as such. --Eleemosynary 10:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the process of getting through the documentation for Wikipedia, but there is a *hell* of a _lot_ of it! Specific references would be appreciated-- what *specific* "basics" are you alluding to? That being said, all the info I posted is objectively true, to my knowledge. If there is any language that is subjective or shows a specific bias, point it out (as I've said before!), and I'll edit it to read more objectively. My edit provided significantly more substantive information than yours, and therefore would be more use to someone trying to get info on this law school. If you dislike my edit, add comparable substantive info -- not the same, barebones, two or three paragraphs. Undoing an article that has a lot of useful information for one that has very little -- *that* seems more like vandalism to me!Hyperion357 10:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You have now been officially warned on your Talk page, from an admin. No one owes you a one-on-one tutorial on the basics of Wikipedia, especially after you have repeatedly vandalized the page. If you'd like to contribute constructively, I suggest you learn this site's guidelines. But if you're going to continue to make such claims as "all the info I posted is objectively true, to my knowledge," I fear you are past the point of good faith discourse. --Eleemosynary 18:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

'Twasn't a request for a one-on-one tutorial -- I merely ask what *specific* basics you were alluding to -- a reasonable request, given that, if you print up the tutorials, its a substantial *ream*! I'm trying to get through it, as I can find the time, but, really, with a job and a *life*, its quite a lot to go through! (Incidentally, if you look at the page about "Tendentious Editing" you'll note that one of the signs they cite is calling someone *else* a vandal! You are the person who first made that charge of me! Yet: the Vandals were a barbaric hoard who willfully destroyed for the sake of destruction. I was trying to add information which, being familiar with this institution, I reasonably believed to be valid -- you are the one who removed that information, wholesale -- not a particularly sentence here or there which could be justifiably construed as showing some bias. So, whose behavior is the closer to the model set by the Vandals?) As for good faith discourse -- you *led* *off* with accusing me of being a "sock" and of providing "astroturf". What footwear and landscaping have to do with the issue, I'm not sure, but from the context, I gather they aren't complimentary? If so, you can hardly claim to have *started* this discussion in good faith, or premised on a mutual assumption of good will.

I'm just trying to improve this article, and bring it more in line with the articles for comparable law schools in the area. What's wrong with that? Hyperion357 19:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Spamming?

So ... when you reduce the amount of meaningful information about this Law School, its _editing_, but when I *improve* it, its _spamming_?

If you are going to float such accusations, you need to make the article more comprehensive, not less so. Hyperion357 23:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperion357 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

See above comments. --Eleemosynary 02:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)