User talk:Btm

Please remember Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. Leave a comment by clicking the "+" tab at the top of the page or by adding it to the bottom of the page with an appropriate heading. Generally, I will respond to your comments here to avoid fractured discussions.

2005 Kashmir earthquake

Indian subcontinent earthquakes list Thank you for your contribution at 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Please keep it up!!! - P R A D E E P Somani (talk) Feel free to send me e-mail.

6.46, 10 October 2005

Afghanistan and oil

Although I have not previously been involved in the recent changes to this article, I reverted your changes to War on Terror. The phrase encompasses both Afghanistan and Iraq, and the criticism section discusses both of these. The criticism about oil is generally not applied to Afghanistan, as it is not strategicially important when it comes to oil. Other criticisms, however, may be (more) valid, depending on one's point of view. btm 05:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC) (Comment copied from User talk:Copperchair from which it had been removed by User:Copperchair)

The criticism section is for the War on Terrorism (Afghanistan). The reference to oil in the article is because of the need for the U.S. to secure the REGION for transporting it. Copperchair 10:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Lax/ Willard Straight

I just noticed the Willard Straight entry. It's nicely done... good work! I also noticed you had a discussion about the 1987 Ivy Lacrosse championship -- I found this Yale Daily News [1] that confirms that Cornell won (outright) that year. btm 06:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (Copied from User talk:Cornellrockey for context)

I'm just checking to make sure its accurate. Glad some one knew to double check the ivy data. Thanks for the compliment on the Straight article. I finally found out where he was buried and got the rest of his military service info and added it. Golly, I am such a huge Cornell dork. all the best, Cornell Rockey 20:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Cornell intro

Xtreambar put up a new intro today that he said you worked on -- it's really good stuff. Good job! JDoorjam 22:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for letting me know. I was going to get around to it tomorrow (finally), including some work on the references, which currently are a bit outdated and messy. btm 03:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

REALLY nice work with the Cornell intro paragraph. Well done! Cornell Rockey 05:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"MIT of..."

I've been dithering about this one. I don't want you to think me biassed toward my own alma mater and I think the "MIT of" section is unencyclopedic and just silly. But there are three differences between it and the Harvard of the Midwest article that have kept me from deleting it personally.

First, it's not a whole article, just a section of what is a fairly lighthearted article.

Second, I find Harvard of the Midwest slightly more objectionable than a comprehensive "Harvard of..." list would be, or than the "MIT of..." list is. Here's why. The implicit message of "Harvard of the Midwest" is regional boosterism ("we have lots of schools as good as Harvard"). This is unpleasant but I don't think it's sustainable. Harvard is in a different class from most of the schools mentioned. Do you think Oklahoma State, or Carleton College (a college I seriously considered myself), or even the University of Chicago, is really comparable to Harvard? I don't.

The implicit message of the "MIT of..." list is MIT boosterism: "Look, MIT is the standard of comparison." But... well... to some extent I think this is supportable. Whether or not MIT is really the mostest more betterer highly rankaged Nobel prize count yadda yadda yadda compared to CalTech... consider the following list: Who is the best composer? Beethoven. Best scientist? Einstein. Best car? Cadillac. Best college? Harvard. What's the best engineering school?

All nonsense as objective facts in themselves. Nobody really thinks Cadillac is the best car any more, or even the most expensive, but people still use the phrase "the Cadillac of..." They are not facts, but their existence as popular memes is (probably) an objective fact.

Third, and this is really what has kept me from pulling the trigger on it myself, at least the MIT list editors went to the trouble of providing actual verifiable citations, rather than just asserting "Google and ye shall find." I'm sure that in both cases the research consisted of casual Googling, but at least the MIT editors took the trouble to pick out relevant hits and copy and paste the references.

Does this mean I think it should be kept? No. I'm just explaining to you why I personally haven't done anything about it.

In my own personal view, the MIT of... list is borderline and does not desperately need deletion, while Harvard of the Midwest does.

However, if someone else were to excise the "MIT of..." list I certainly wouldn't lift a finger to defend it. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I recognize and appreciate your vigilance with MIT. I agree with most of what you say above. The section has a reference for every claim that it makes and, clearly, was pretty hard work for the people that worked on it. So, for that reason (and a few others) I decided to start a discussion on the section rather than simply removing it. Harvard of the Midwest is regional boosterism, indeed. I can't tell which particular university is boosted by the article; it's more an assertion of "Well, look, collectively the schools of the Midwest are comparable to the schools of the East — we even like compare ourselves to the very best school of the schools of the East."

So, Harvard is often the standard of comparison. One so inclined might use this in at least two ways: to boost Harvard, or to boost another university. Of course, these comparisons often look rather silly and tend to have the opposite effect. However, and article entitled "The Harvards of the world" would be just as objectionable, if not more so, than "Harvard of the Midwest." btm 23:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on my page

Yeah, at first I was amused by that post, but now it's not even funny anymore, just stupid. Thanks for reminding me that was still on my talk page. Cheers, JDoorjam 12:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Penn/Princeton

I have a lead, under deep cover double secrecy not for attribution background only. I can say only that it is not Weeren. I am sworn to deepest secrecy on this. This source tells me that he believes that someone he asked kind of thought he remembered talking to someone who recollected that Penn/Princeton's positions in academic processions has changed _within the last few decades_.

He says that formally the order is determined by the institution hosting the procession; the founding date is usually printed in the programme for the event; the founding date is usually the result of the host asking the participants and accepting their self-reported founding date. He says that the result of this is that several decades ago Princeton generally preceded Penn but that starting circa 1990 Penn preceded Princeton.

This would be interesting if it could be confirmed, as it would indicate that the issue is fresher and less settled than I had thought. I had thought Penn claimed 1740 since 1899, sort of "that's our story and we're sticking to it," but if Penn itself has waffled since 1899 I'd find that intriguing. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed

The changes look good. Courier new 18:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

category:College and Univeristy Types

Thanks for the information about how to fix a misspelled category name. I'll know for next time. --Jdlh | Talk 01:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Deciding for Oneself

Can you, who I think to be very sensible, please tell me why the people who use Wikipedia should not be able to make decisions for themselves. Are we all to become Panurge's sheep? Courier new 00:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that your thoughts stem from interactions you've had with other Wikipedians on college and university articles. Probably the University of Cambridge, specifically. I agree that Wikipedia's readers are smart enough to make their own conclusions based on facts and we don't need to make vacuous statements about prestige, etc. But I think it's important to give examples of contributions and perhaps some quotations from reputable sources about these contributions. Like you say, we're not trying to herd the masses to take a certain viewpoint, here, we want to be informative. I think you're doing good work in trying to make the articles neutral and fair and to improve them in general.

When you're editing articles, it's important to remember that people tend to edit the pages that they are knowledgable about and that they care about. So, when you want to make major changes and improvements, it's really important to be ready to discuss these and give your reasons for the change (hopefully making a logical argument for the changes); if someone else disagrees, you'll need to understand where that person is coming from and modify your position or argument accordingly (I do like what Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle has to say about this). I've found that the people editing articles generally have a good sense about how to make a balanced presentation of a subject and are striving to improve the aricle, so the best way to get an article into a shape that you like is to make suggestions (of wording, content, etc.) on areas of disagreement — it takes work to make these suggestions and to go through various iterations, but it makes our articles better. I find these discussions, and presenting my viewpoint, to be some of the most rewarding parts of editing Wikipedia; you've been involved in these discussions very actively recently, and I hope you think the same. Even in those cases of honest disagreement — the cases where others really have failed to be convinced — I have fun doing it and I try to understand the reasons behind the disagreement; eventually comes the time to defer to others. Be bold, engage in hearty debate and happy editing! btm _talk 06:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That is very kind of you to say, but I do feel I have a tendency to be overly defensive, and harsh to criticism, when I feel I am being ganged up on. Speaking -- or, writing -- loudly always, always has the opposite of the intented effect. Courier new 16:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's natural to get defensive when you feel like you're getting ganged up on, especially on the Internet, where people just say what they want without thinking or worrying about the ramifications. It happens often. The best thing to do in these situations is to keep the conversation about how articles can be improved and also to avoid being overly aggressive when engaging people that you haven't worked with before. Depending on how your points are received, continue from there, remembering to keep it civil and to expect the same from others in return. btm _talk 05:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Boosterism seems to have reached epidemic proportions. I have found a great deal of bias in the Vassar article, just one of many similarly biased articles: “Vassar is often praised for its beautiful campus, a 1000 acre (4 km?) lot of land marked by period and modern buildings that is also an arboretum; since that time, it has maintained its reputation as one of America's outstanding liberal arts colleges, and is especially noted for its tolerant social atmosphere; the college is a member of the "Little Ivies," an unaffiliated group of elite northeastern liberal arts colleges; Vassar is a leader in producing doctoral candidates; Vassar students are well known for their individuality, creativity, and open-mindedness; many beautiful old brick buildings are scattered throughout the bucolic campus, but there are also several modern and contemporary structures worth noting." (The sentence on the noble character of these students got me to laugh.) Did this come directly from the College's website? Hmm. Courier new 22:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Curious as to what is your opinion on the discussion on the Shakespeare talk page. Courier new 01:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the lead section as it currently stands is a very good introduction to Shakespeare. I certainly think that the lead paragraph should say something about his preeminent status as a playwright. I think that this is necessary for both a good and a complete article on Shakespeare. I looked at the entries for Shakespeare in the online editions of Britannica and Encarta and found:

Shakespeare also spelled Shakspere , byname Bard of Avon or Swan of Avon English poet, dramatist, and actor, often called the English national poet and considered by many to be the greatest dramatist of all time.[2]

and

William Shakespeare (1564-1616), English playwright and poet, recognized in much of the world as the greatest of all dramatists. Hundreds of editions of his plays have been published, including translations in all major languages. Scholars have written thousands of books and articles about his plots, characters, themes, and language. He is the most widely quoted author in history, and his plays have probably been performed more times than those of any other dramatist.[3]

I think that the best way to improve articles that make such claims about very widely hed opinions — ones that are pretty easily supported, basically without major disputes or points of contention — is to make sure that the reader is given further information about the basis of this claim somewhere in the article (in fact, most of the article is likely to support it if the claim is so widely held) and is given the resources to form their own opinion about how valid they think the claim is. So, one of the main driving forces behind a discussion like this should be to try to find books, articles (online library databases are a great way to quickly search for these, if you have access) and reliable webpages that can give the reader such an overview. In this particular case, based on my reading of the first few paragraphs, Shakespeare's reputation appears to serve this purpose well, but giving several independent sources may well be better, and verifiable, published sources are always preferred. btm _talk 08:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Join In!

Hey there - I've submitted Oregon State University as a Join in page and thought you might be interested in signing up. Thanks! VegaDark 02:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Oregon State University is an active collaboration

Hi, you may begin working on Oregon State University with your two fellow editors. The collaboration will continue to be listed under active collaborations, so more editors may join later. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

JDoorjam's RfA

Thank you! Hey Btm, thank you for your support in my RfA: it passed with a final tally of 55/1/2. If you want a hand with anything, please gimme a shout. Again, thanks! – JDoorjam Talk 22:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford...

Thanks for the removing that section. I put a long note in Talk because I think perhaps it does deserve some discussion, though. And I also removed the statistics I had put in myself commenting on the many respects in which Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have relative ranks of 1, 2, and 3. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the section is quite interesting (in fact, I was originally going to say something to that effect in my edit summary, but decided against it). However, HYP's status has to much to do with their early founding and their history, and I personally think that Stanford's status has much more to do with it's geographical isolation from the elite Eastern universities, California's rise in population and the tendency for students to attend the top colleges in their area. However, with California's status as having the sixth largest economy in the world, I can only imagine what Stanford's status would be if the state had not invested so heavily in its UC system and letting the responsibility of higher education fall on private institutions. btm _talk 01:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Cornell History

Excellent job a few months ago with the Cornell history page. Any chance that you will fill out the rest of the history? --Xtreambar 20:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been pretty busy recently with offline interests and I've been on a bit of a Wiki break — I haven't been contributing much to the encyclopedia because of these distractions, but I was planning on eventually expanding that page to give a more balanced view of Cornell's history. I can't say for sure when I'll get around to doing this, but I do plan on doing it. Of course, if you have interest in adding to the page to include more recent history (I'm pretty sure you have at least a little interest in this subject =), then edit away. btm _talk 21:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Cornell needs you!

Me and a small team of editors have brought Cornell University to near-featured article status, but we still have a few things to do (see the talk page). In particular, I saw you did a lot of work on Cornell Big Red and would like you to expand the Athletics section of the main Cornell article. It doesn't describe enough significant athletic programs successes (or lack of successes) to really hit the issue with a neutral point of view. Could you help out? -mercuryboard^talk ♠ 18:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Turn Left page

Hi. I'm involved in an argument on the Turn Left page. As you have edited the page in the past, I'd like to seek your input on the matter, also dicussed on Talk:Turn_Left. Thank you. Xiner 02:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Texas A&M

Howdy! As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Texas A&M, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Texas A&M University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks and Gig 'em! Oldag07 12:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Since you are interested in Pomona College you might want to check out this AfD of a professor's bio: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. Borock (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nonsectarian

The article Nonsectarian has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dictionary definition every organization is either secular or not so making it a list seems untenable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)