Jump to content

User talk:Mesconsing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Imervard (talk | contribs) at 19:22, 2 December 2012 (→‎Dejope Hall section of University of Wisconsin-Madison pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Mesconsing, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Valfontis (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire

Hi Mesconsing,

I saw you added the "academic boosterism" tag to the UW-Eau Claire article. All claims made about the university are properly referenced. If you could point to any peacock terms, I would appreciate it. I can't find any. I think the article is disinterested and encyclopedic. 88guy88 (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Eau Claire Cont.

Hi Mesconsing,

Thanks for promptly replying to my message. Let's keep our future conversations in a single spot, if you don't mind. I would be happy to continue our discussion on the university's talk page, or right here. Whatever the case, it might become confusing if we post in multiple places.

1) Can you point to any other peacock terms beyond "high marks." Further, is "high marks" really a peacock term or is it simply factual? The statement is sourced quite well. Do me a favor and read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Also, if you could point me to a wiki style guide that specifically disallows any mention of notable alumni in the introductory section of a university article I would appreciate it.

As I tried to explain, the problems with the article aren't as simplistic as just using peacock terms. The entire tone of the article and the severe cherrypicking of "facts" are problematic. Yes, "high marks" is definitely a peacock term. I don't have time to wikilawyer right now, but look at the college and university articles that are good or featured to see what a lead should look like.

2) When you say "vague" plaudits (and again refer only to "high marks") I must again disagree. The comment appears in the introduction to the university. It would be an inappropriate place to expound on the specific rankings of the institution. The statement is heavily sourced in a later section of the article: "reputation."

You're absolutely right. Rankings don't belong in the lead.

3) I am happy to change "currently" to 2012/2011 (or whatever year a particular ranking happens to be from) if you feel this word is innapropriate.

Typically, articles will say something like: "In 2011 USNWR ranked Podunk University 653rd." Use the year the ranking occurred so the reader can determine how recent it is.

4) You write, "Although many of the peacockisms have citations, they're citations to UWEC promo literature. That's hardly an objective source. Please read the Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines." First, please specify what other "peacockisms" you are refering to. Second, the article is sourced with a combination of both UW-Eau Claire articles and articles from specific rankings institutions. I did not see a section of the guidelines article you pointed me to that disallowed citing articles published by a university. The facts that these articles cover are backed up by other articles from the rankings institutions themselves.

Please read the guidelines more carefully and try to avoid wikilawyering. Self-published sources are definitely suspect, although not prohibited.

5) You write, "Overall, the tone and the cherrypicking of "facts" cause problems with this article. Example: The placement rate of chemistry graduates is not a widely accepted standard for evaluating colleges, and seems like a silly item to include in a WP article about any college." Please cite a specific wiki guideline that disallows the inclusion of chemistry to PhD rates. It might seem "silly" to you, but that isn't quite enough. Further, clarify the facts you believe are cherrypicked.

Again, please stop wikilawyering. Mesconsing (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping edit this article.

88guy88 (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin needed

Clearly, an admin is needed to sort this out. Your charge of "wikilawyering" (which allows you to ignore my reasonable, non-confrontational, respectful objections) is inapropriate. Let's not let this discussion devolve into a series of ad hominem attacks.

88guy88 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the folks at WikiProject Universities to take a look at the article. So far, the only comments received were that my editing made the article "much better". Mesconsing (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. I would be interested to see those comments. 88guy88 (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy moved

Hi Mesconsing,

Just so you know, I moved our conversation to the UW-Eau Claire talk page. It's the appropriate spot, I think. Let's have all further conversation take place there. 88guy88 (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution steps taken

Hi Mesconsing,

I just took some steps to resolve our dispute. You can find out more here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard 88guy88 (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Gogebic Range, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montreal River (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link in article 'Wisconsin'

Hi. The article 'Wisconsin' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?


Dead: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/MilkProd/MilkProd-03-18-2011.pdf

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!


PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots|deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

Many thanks-RFD (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Historical populations/doc

I reverted your edit on Template:Historical populations/doc as changing the infobox title on the Complete template in the documentation, in this case removing the 's' after 'population', will make its corresponding template, Template:Historical populations, useless (red link) if someone would copy and paste the complete template into an article. --Briarfallen (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Black Creek, Wisconsin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Planning Commission (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Stars Drum and Bugle Corps

Hi Mesconsing. The GOCE Coordinators have agreed that we need to decline your request for a copy edit of Blue Stars Drum and Bugle Corps, as it seems to be more of a content dispute than a copy editing issue, and we don't have the muscle or skills to handle those. Sorry we couldn't be more help. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Barnstar

WikiProject Wisconsin Barnstar.png The WikiProject Wisconsin Barnstar
Many thanks for your edits-RFD (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tb

Hello, Mesconsing. You have new messages at Tvoz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tvoz/talk 22:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

I have 15+ years as a statistician. Statistical interpretation requires some statistical test otherwise it is simply numerical analysis. Furthermore, Silver did not claim his analysis was statistical in nature or make some claim of statistical significance. Ryan, for example, is not statistically different than most of those that he compared against, he even stated as much when he made his comparison against Bachmann. Heck Silver didn't even do a statistical test at all. All he did was pull up the information from another source and compared the numbers, it is a diservice to the actual science to call it a statistical analysis, especially when he didn't make the claim. Arzel (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Todd Wehr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ripon College (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ryan

In the course of an edit to "reduce wordiness" you removed material that was provided to allow for a better understanding of an event in the subject's life. The material regarding the death of Ryan's father is currently phrased in a manner that is short on relevant details and almost flippant in its wording about something that would have obviously had a profound impact on Ryan. Would you mind restoring the information you removed? You can obviously rewrite or shorten the material, but I think it is important to explain that Ryan came home during work specifically because there was concern about his father and I would add that the wording "after suffering from" is less awkward than the current wording, so I believe that should simply be restored. Please also see my suggestions regarding other parts of the article at the GA review page since you seem actively interested in making substantial improvements.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Divine Mercy

Hi-The Knights of Divine Mercy is expanding. I added an article from the National Catholic Register that talked about that. I would not opposed prodding the article in 2007 at the time it was started but not now. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I added the the National Catholic Register and expanded the article as a result it was a good faith edit and not a crystal ball-I was using the NCR citation and it was in good faith. If you and anyone else wants to delete the article that is fine. Thanks-RFD (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bissell, Wisconsin

Hi-Go ahead and merge the article. Also there are 3 other articles listed also in the Bristol, Wisconsin article that need to be merge as well-if you can do that also-thanks again-RFD (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cypress, Wisconsin, Pikeville, Wisconsin, Woodworth, Wisconsin also merge into village of Briston, Wisconsin article-thanks-RFD (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent-thank you for doing this.RFD (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnsonville Foods

Hi-I just deleted uncited materials in the Johnsonville Foods. The only section I kept in was some political activity of the owners and that was cited. Would you please lok at the article and see what can be done. It needs lots of work with citations. Thanks-RFD (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dejope Hall section of University of Wisconsin-Madison pages

The University of Wisconsin-Madison page now has the materials about Dejope Hall in two places. You had moved and abbreviated the text and placed it in a different section. Can you remove the part that I had done with other students below that? Please leave the effigy mounds section intact though... Thanks; I can't remove it myself... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imervard (talk • contribs) 19:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Mesconsing (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mesconsing. Can you make the effigy mound section into its own section now? It seems to have disappeared. Thanks so much..

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mesconsing&oldid=526055614"