User talk:Thebrycepeake

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Thebrycepeake! Thank you for your contributions. I am I am One of Many and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! I am One of Many (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Thebrycepeake, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

<3 chin chin!! SarahStierch (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing women into Wikipedia!

	WikiWomen's History Month Award
	It was great meeting you this weekend in Eugene! Thank you for attending the edit-a-thon, and for helping to write women into Wikipedia. I hope you will continue to edit - if you need any help, just ask me :) Thank you and happy women's history month! SarahStierch (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Oregon

You are invited to join WikiProject Oregon, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to the U.S. state of Oregon .

You received this invitation because of your history editing Oregon articles or discussion of Oregon topics. The Oregon WikiProject group discussion is here.
If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of participants. New members may read about existing members and introduce themselves here.

Hope you enjoyed the meetup! Please feel free to join this group to work on other Oregon-related articles and be notified of future meetups. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad so see that you already met Another Believer, and I am glad that you got a chance to visit a local meetup. Let either of us know if you ever need anything. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

I made a few changes to your userpage. If you have any question feel free to ask me on my talk page --Guerillero | My Talk 20:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks- I saw your changes, and appreciate them!

190.75.107.69 just attempted to blank your user page

Hello! I just thought you should be aware that 190.75.107.69 blanked some sections of your user page. The edits were reverted and he was warned. Thanks! Endofskull (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And he just did it again.... Endofskull (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a third time... and a fourth time... AND A FIFTH TIME.

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Thebrycepeake. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Ducknish (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Hello Bryce, I have adjusted the "Kinship, Gender & Sexuality" navbox so that it opens the "related articles" section showing the relationship of the kinship cluster to feminist anthropology. If you check the anthropology main page you'll see that this is one of a series of sub-navboxes I've added. The main box lists all the main pages for major topics (such as Feminist anthropology) which is why I placed it on this page. The sub-navbox was placed on the page because of the close relationship with Gender & sexuality.

That said, I'm surprised to find that there is no "Anthropology of gender and sexuality" page (yet!) on wikipedia.

I'm primarily an economic anthropologist, but do have a friend who is a co-editor with Henrietta Moore, and will try to convince him to contribute. I really like your idea of a Wikipedia workshop at the AAA, but I'm having to pass this year since my department is hosting the Canadian Anthropological Society meetings. We're planning a "wikipedia mashup" session as well. Please let me know how your workshop turns out and maybe we can benefit from your experience.Schrauwers (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article can use some expansion

Just thought you could use a new article suggestion. This article could surely be expanded. SarahStierch (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for sticking around for as long as you have and for working on Doves (Gibraltar). Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

… for coming to the meetup this afternoon. It was a pleasure meeting you, and I hope to see you at another Wikipedia event soon. And let's give some thought to Portland, Eugene, or both for Wiki Loves Pride in June! --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case you happen to be in Portland this weekend! --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited! Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride, a global campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia during the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. The project is being spearheaded by two organizers with roots in the Pacific Northwest. Meetups are being organized in some cities, or you can participate remotely. Wikimedia Commons will also be hosting an LGBT-related photo challenge.

In Portland, there are two ways to contribute. One is a photography campaign called "Pride PDX", for pictures related to LGBT culture and history. The Wiki Loves Pride edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, June 21 from noon–4pm at Smith Memorial Student Union, Room 236 at Portland State University. Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and cords.

Feel free to showcase your work here!

If you have any questions, please leave a message here. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Oregon-related events and projects by removing your name from this list.

Sexual harassment investigation at University of Chicago

Per WP:MOS/LEAD, we should not "violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section." In the scope of the University of Chicago's 125-year history, a current sexual assault investigation (not an accusation or a charge, but merely an investigation), which is also being carried out on several other universities, is not so fundamental that it should be discussed in the very first paragraph of the lead. For this reason, I'm moving the information back to its own section. If you strongly disagree, I suggest we get a WP:Third opinion. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's good info to have but you're adding it to the lead of articles where it doesn't belong. Two editors have now requested that you stop this practice so please comply so we can discuss this issue. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I have justified the addition to both authors as the information clearly "reflect[s] its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources" WP:LEAD (how often do presidents name universities as dangerous places), and well referenced (US Gov., can also link bomb amount of info, but I know that's a violation). I'm happy to hear any suggestions you have on how to improve it, but it is clearly within the WP:MOS. Please remember that leads should be written with WP:NPOV, and that university/college entries are not advertisements or public relations information.Thebrycepeake (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am I clear that your response to two (now three?) fellow editors who have asked you to discuss your edits and perhaps place them in a different section - not delete or omit them altogether - is essentially "Fuck you I'm right?" C'mon, slow down and be reasonable. If three other editors have questioned your edits and you're the only one in favor of them then clearly there isn't consensus for those edits. I appreciate your bold edits but we're clearly at the "discuss" stage of BRD so please stop making these edits until we can establish a consensus. (This might make a good centralized location since we're discussing edits or proposed edits to several articles.)

Incidentally, if you're only working from the original list of 55 then you're missing a dozen that were added to the list about a week and a half ago: http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2014/07/03/us-adds-12-institutions-title-ix-investigation-list ElKevbo (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for dropping the link for Inside Higher Ed. Because I was working on citing the initial schools, I wanted to use the May 1 (along with the language from that announcement). Have no fear, I'll get to the new 12 eventually :)! I'll also head over to WT:UNI to ask folks about their feelings. Yet, as for WP:BRD, as it states "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." I feel like in engaging other editors about the issue, and talking about policies, I site policy and I get opinions in return -- not grounded on any substantial wiki policy. I'll be sure to create (or place the info in) a controversy section as I continue on, and will post on WT:UNI before I kick it to the lead. Thebrycepeake (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and sorry if I came off as a dick. Thebrycepeake (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. All's well that ends well. ElKevbo (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article on this topic yet? I found this which isn't bad but I'm not sure if that article needs to be expanded to include all of this newer material or if there should be a separate article. Thoughts? ElKevbo (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of recent Dartmouth info

This just came across my RSS feed and might be useful for you if you're going to argue for this kind of information having a prominent place in the Dartmouth article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always! I'll be sure to include in the convo. Thebrycepeake (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversies"

I have another suggestion - request - as you add this material to different articles, which is that you take care to work the material in in a way that fits with what was already there. For example at University of Michigan you created a new "Controversies" section and then added a paragraph about the investigation; that would be fine, if there were not already plenty of other controversies relating to the University that were already described elsewhere in the article. I eliminated the new section, and moved the accompanying text to a spot alongside the earlier matters. In making these edits, you should either read the entire article and, either add the material in a place that makes sense, or, consolidate other controversies as appropriate into the new section you're creating. Just bolting a new section onto existing articles, and then showing this single item as the only 'controversy" not only interrupts the flow of the article but gives a misleading sense of what controversies the school might have actually been involved with during its history. It's a bit more work of course but the extra work ensures that the articles are in fact improved by your edits. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John! I guess I was just modeling after other pages which have a section for controversies. Should we be striving for uniformity across the entries for colleges and universities, and if so, what do you think is better - the controversies section or integration? I'm leaning towards a controversies section, but would love to hear what you think. Thebrycepeake (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry to butt in!) I lean strongly toward integrating "controversies" with the appropriate section (which would often be history but not always). But this isn't an issue that we've completely resolved as shown in this discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think (without having looked at the foregoing linked discussion) that standalone Controversies sections are a bit of a kludge and should be avoided in favor of more careful editing. But that's not to say they're always inappropriate either - JohnInDC (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List for schools under Title IX investigation

As mentioned by someone in the discussion of the Category, maybe we could make a list instead?

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists includes the details. And it seems like a list article (or potentially a list section inside a larger article, if that would work better for you) would work better, because you can keep it up to date in a single place. And when we're editing relevant sections about sexual assault in university web pages, we can wikilink to the list. Npdoty (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right - it does seem more manageable than a category at this point. Thanks for the suggestion!Thebrycepeake (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bryce. I notice that you've been meeting some resistance when you're tried to include properly sourced content related to this matter. I'm even wondering if a sock puppet has now gotten involved. Before I plunge into this matter any further, I'd like some background. Has this been discussed anywhere else? I notice in your edit summaries that you mention a consensus. Please point me in the right direction. I sympathize with your efforts and haven't seen a legitimate reason for why your edits should be rejected.

The one objection that might have some legitimacy is the use of a "controversies" section. While they aren't forbidden, we try to avoid them, so you may have more success if you use a different approach. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch Brangifer. I was just trying to keep a cool head and keep on keeping on. It does seem like some of the reversions are fishily similar (and with weird interpretations WikiPolicy).

This was discussed at the WT:UNI page, here in the archives. My understanding was that we came to a consensus that it should be added, particularly because users like ElKevbo and Esrever started to help fix style issues and move stuff into history sections when appropriate (after someone protested the controversy section), and not simply delete the materials. I've just been so busy over the past month and a half though, that I haven't been able to finish that work at some of the pages. Thebrycepeake (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored your content, but have also tweaked the heading. That makes it less offensive. Incorporating it into existing content, rather than a separate section, is also a way forward, whenever that can be done. Keep me oriented if you run into any problems. Make sure you don't edit war. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brangifer, but it appears one of those sock puppets has now nominated the list article mentioned above as retaliation.Thebrycepeake (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but are you accusing Briancua of being a sock puppet? Probably not a wise thing to do.Dkspartan1 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at Wikipedia for page protection

Last call for opinions on RFC at Wikipedia page for page protection extension. User:Pundit is in support of increasing gender equality at Wikipedia and another user is opposed to User:Pundit's efforts. Cheers. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist+Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon: Saturday, September 13, Portland, Oregon

You are invited to the Feminist+Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, to be held on Saturday, September 13, 2014 from noon–4pm at the Independent Publishing Resource Center (IPRC), located at 1001 SE Division (97202).

Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend, but all are welcome. Hope to see you there!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the talk page.
You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Oregon-related events and projects by removing your name from this list.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of list of schools under investigation

As the primary author, I wanted to give you a heads up that I nominated List of American higher education institutions with open Title IX sexual violence investigations for deletion as I believe it fails WP:N and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. You may want to comment on it there.--Briancua (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Morgen

I understand that what was said about you on the Sandra Morgen talk page is unflattering, but that does not mean you can delete it. Take a look at what the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines have to say on the subject: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection..." Under the heading of personal attacks, they can sometimes be removed if the comments involve " personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived."

As you can see, you have to rise to the level of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing in order to justify deleting a comment, and still then it is a "borderline case." This comment does not even come close to being disruptive. I am reverting your deletion. If you disagree, I suggest we get a Wikipedia:Third opinion. --Briancua (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about a compromise. I am fine with the critique, what is absolutely unacceptable is the insults to my integrity that are the vehicle for that critique. I would be happy to let you retype the critique and leave it there. Thoughts?Thebrycepeake (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that wouldn't be OK. Per the guidelines I linked to above, "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." I don't have their permission, and so I can't rewrite it. I sympathize with you since it was an unkind thing to say, but unfortunately that's not justification for deleting it. --Briancua (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to offer my opinion, even though I haven't even looked at what happened, so forgive me if I'm way off base. In principle, it's often good strategy to leave personal attacks, especially the worst ones, in place, the worse the better. It always reflects badly on the perpetrator. Why remove the evidence of their stupidity? Don't make them look better. Just don't sink to the same level and make equally stupid personal attacks. You could leave an objection and an edit summary which mentions "gross personal attack". That will make it easy to find later, and also call attention to that diff. I do recognize that there can be some types of attacks which amount to outing, and the sensitive information, but not the whole statement, should be expunged completely. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a regular volunteer at the Third Opinion project. The request made there has been removed/declined because it was about user conduct, not article content. 3O does not handle disputes over user conduct, consider RFC/U or ANI for conduct issues, or refile at 3O (or at some other content dispute resolution venue) and limit the request to content matters, only. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you cannot delete or hide comments simply because you don't like them. I understand what was said was both unkind and makes you look bad, but it does not rise to the level of disruptive editing. Please stop or I will have to notify an administrator. --Briancua (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't understand is that the comments are part of a whole campaign of harassment which involved the person blanking my user page (legacy here), as well as placing fake court summons' on my talk page, on the talk page for different colleges and universities, and various editors I had worked with -- all of which were megablanked by WMF. This editing is disruptive to my experience as a Wikipedian, and I'm sorry if you feel that the gross personal attacks on that talk page are more important than having another editor. I have removed them again. Please do contact an admin if you have a problem with that.Thebrycepeake (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if that's what you want. --Briancua (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.[reply]

List of . . . open Title IX sexual violence investigations

Bryce, Brian Cua has agreed to withdraw his AfD nomination without prejudice to resubmit later, in order to give us time to create something worthy of keeping, explains the background of these Title IX issues, explains the significance of the recent release of the "list," and is fair to the institutions on the list against which investigations are being conducted.

You are our "expert" on point. Can you compile a list of all of the major sources that have covered Title IX sexual investigations in the last 12 months? And by major sources, I mean major detailed articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, National Journal, and any law reviews, law journals, or other peer-reviewed academic journals. I am not looking for four to five paragraph announcement articles in regional media, wire articles, etc. I'm looking for meaningful details and knowledgeable analysis of the issues involved -- social, political and legal, as well as the impact on university administration. Your choice: either compile the linked sources on the article talk page or in a sandbox subpage of your user page, where we can review them and discuss them, and other concerned editors can check our progress and see what we're up to. Just let me know where it is, so I can start reviewing/reading your sources as you post them and when I have some free time to do so.

We're obviously going to need to rename the list to reflect the change from "list" to non-list "article". Please give some thought to what the new article name should be. I'm relatively open minded now, but I am sure I will have a stronger opinion about a new name after I've had an opportunity to immerse myself in the material.

Look forward to working with you to produce a good final product. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I will do this over the next day or two and dump stuff in the talk page as I come across it.Thebrycepeake (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit the archived section

It is unnecessary to get the last word there. You may go to the editor's talk page instead and address him or her there. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for telling like it is. Looking forward to seeing an essay some day!

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]