User talk:DMB112

TALK PAGE

DMB112, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi DMB112! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

endowment data

Hi there. I've reverted a couple of changes you've made to university articles (like Dartmouth College and Stanford University) as regards the endowment data. You've switched those articles to using NACUBO data for the endowment, but all of that data seems to be from 2011. Some articles have data that is more recent. Why would we want to use outdated data? Esrever ^(klaT) 08:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too have reverted some of your endowment changes, to UCLA and UC Berkeley. Not only is NACUBO data a year older than the UC Treasurer's report, it's incomplete because it does not include the endowments managed by the UC Regents on behalf of the UC schools.Contributor321 (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to both of you,

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.

Thanks, DMB112 (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your reasoning. I too agree NACUBO is a very useful source because it standardizes the data, but believe it should only be the "official" source for private colleges and universities and should be used with caution for public universities. In the case of the University of California system, NACUBO seems to report only the endowments managed by the UC schools' Foundations, and does not include the endowments managed on behalf of the UC schools by the UC Regents (see p.4 of http://www.ucop.edu/treasurer/_files/report/UC_Annual_Endowment_Report_FY2011-2012.pdf for details). Therefore, I believe the UC endowment data reported by the UC Treasurer's Office is relevant and should be shown in Wikipedia articles for UC schools. When NACUBO releases its updated report for 2012, please do not update the UC schools endowments with NACUBO's incomplete data. Thank you.Contributor321 (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Georgia State University‎. 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) 11:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of Georgia Tech

Please explain the reasons why you added "POV" for History of Georgia Tech on the talk page of that article. Thanks Mistercontributer (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at Talk:History_of_Georgia_Tech#Regarding_a_question_of_neutrality. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very interesting. Biosthmors (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still can not determine if you were being serious or not since you seem to be objecting to historical facts. I hope you do not plan to create any more mischief with GT related articles, but I guess only time will tell. Obviously adding "POV" to History of Georgia Tech article was not a good way to introduce yourself to the GT WikiProject group. In the future, if you have an issue with GT article, please simply post your concern on the article talk page so we may consider your point of view. Good luck with UGA WikiProject. Mistercontributer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mistercontributor, please remain civil. I don't appreciate your tone. The bit I removed was, indeed, in question of neutrality. I was not objecting to historical facts nor was I causing mischief on the History of Georgia Tech page. Please see the talk page for more information. My goal is to continue to add and improve to all Georgia colleges and universities as well as other forms of higher ed in Georgia. Thanks for your word of encouragement regarding UGA WikiProject. I will be sure to comment on your talk page(s) before editing in any more labels.

DMB112 (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

President's House (University of Georgia), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Folklore1 (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flagship Survey

I'd be curious to know your thoughts regarding the list of flagship universities you worked on for the Flagship article. One suggestion that was mentioned in the current RfC at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flagship#Survey was to move the list in a separate article for Flagship Universities in the United States. I believe the idea may have merit, but as the list was a product of your work, I wanted to have you weigh in (if you're of a mind to). Thanks, 173.170.235.213 (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your comment. I have commented on the talk page.

Marshall, Fulbright and Rhodes scholars

DMB, I feel compelled to let you know out of courtesy that I am adamantly opposed to adding these tables displaying the number of Marshall, Fulbright and Rhodes scholars to college athletic conference articles. Unlike SAT and ACT scores, graduation rates, freshman retention rates, NCAA academic progress rates of scholarship athletes, and other similar large-sample academic measures of undergraduate student bodies, the number of international scholarship winners are small-sample statistics and are not generally used by any serious higher education scholars to compare universities, especially those that are members of Division I athletic conferences. Many of the athletic conference articles are already too long and increasingly filled with fan-boy trivia, and I view these international scholarship tables as a somewhat more sophisticated version of the same. I am prepared to start an RFC to determine consensus regarding the inclusion of these tables in the athletic conference articles.

If I may make a suggestion, it would be far better to create three stand-alone lists displaying the number of Marshall, Fulbright and Rhodes scholarships awarded by undergraduate institution of the recipients. Breaking these lists up by athletic conference is tangential to the principal purposes of the conferences, and introduces three statistical metrics that neither the NCAA nor the conferences use themselves into the articles. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts dirylawyer. I have removed the Marshall scholar listing for more discussion. I will be adding a list to the pages of Marshall Scholarship, Fulbright Scholarship and Rhode Scholarship, but I also want to add them to the individual football conferences. I was the one who added the academic information to all the football conferences.(haven't gotten to BIG 10 and ACC yet) These days, football conferences are run by a lot more than just the game. I'm sure you're familiar with the BIG 10's unofficial policy of not adding any AAU schools to their conference. Similarly, Mizzou and TAMU were particularly valuable due to their AAU status. Vanderbilt University and University of Florida are also AAU. UGA is slated to become AAU in the next few years. BIG 10, SEC, Pac-12, BIG 12 and ACC operate as educational and research partners as well as football competitors. Many designated peer and aspirational institutions sit within football divisions. Most big time football schools also happen to be flagship universities that represent the best their state can offer for a public price. In a day of dwindling state support, many of these public research universities are using sports as a means to provide their students and faculty with exposure(as seen with our SEC initiative, SECU - I see that you also reside in Atlanta. The SEC academic symposium was in Atlanta this year. I was in attendance and so was UF)

Therefore, I think it's increasingly important to include academic information in the encyclopedia pages. People don't know, and they should. It's valuable content. Research expenditure(pac-12's article has this), academic measures, endowments(already there), endowment growth rates(already there), conference payout distribution(some conferences have this displayed), enrollment data should be published for all of these big football conferences. I also think it gives credit where it is due. There are only 40 Marshall scholarships awarded every year. It's impressive that public universities have been able to compete with private schools such as Harvard, Vanderbilt, Emory and the such. It's good information that readers should know about. A list already exists. I'm simply putting it in HTML on Wikipedia. Let me know what you think. DMB112 (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Team colors on conference pages

FYI, none of the ACC, Big East, C-USA, or Pac-12 have the hex color boxes for team colors of the conferences' individual member universities. They were added by one editor several months ago, and were subsequently removed by consensus as unnecessary and inappropriate decorations a month or two ago. Someone has re-added them to the Big Ten article. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how such a simple addition can be seen as disruptive decorations. An encyclopedia should be streamlined. Thanks for the clear up. I hadn't noticed. I will not be adding in scholarship to the SEC article as you suggested. DMB112 (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to discourage you from creating or enhancing other stand-alone lists for the Marshall, Rhodes and Fulbright scholars, ranked by the number of recipients per university or otherwise. I think those are worthy and notable topics, but we would be stretching to make them truly relevant to the subject of college athletic conferences. If I can be of any assistance to you in the future, please let me know. It looks like we have a significant overlap in our areas of interest (and geography). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to give a heads-up...

...I'll be adding some more information on the Georgia Regents University page soon, adding some meat to the academics section and hopefully getting some more photos up there (GRU has a Flickr). Just wanted to let somebody know what I was doing before doing it and invite a second set of eyes to look at anything I do, since I am affiliated. Thanks! GRUcrule (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep my eyes peeled for your edits. Thanks for your great work. Georgia Regents University needed some work. DMB112 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Old College(University of Georgia) concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Old College(University of Georgia), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Old College(University of Georgia)

Hello DMB112. It has now been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Old College(University of Georgia).

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Old College(University of Georgia)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your table additions

I have started to a discussion about your table additions which can be found here.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 00:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Just wanted to drop you a note asking for your feedback on something I've posted to the Georgia Regents University talk page. If you have a spare moment, it'd be appreciated - thanks! GRUcrule (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GRUcrule,

I'll take a look ASAP.

DMB112 (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Schools ranked by academic measures" sections

Please do not remove 'Off-Topic' tags within article sections, as you did here.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacific-12_Conference&diff=583147975&oldid=583147827 They are designed to spur discussion, colaboration, and improve Wikipedia.

I have tagged the "Schools ranked by academic measures" section within each of the six major college athletic conference articles, to generate feedback and reach consensus on relevance, location, and format.

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Thank you. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm Skarz. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Big 12 Conference without thoroughly explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Skarz (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skarz,

I'm the one who created those tables. I have now consolidated the tables partially on account of what was discussed on the College football project talk page. There was some concern that there were too many tables, too much comparison and too much off-topic data(averages from other conferences). I'm doing the same for the SEC, BIG 10, Pac-12 etc.. sorry for the scare. I was trying to finish up in a hurry before too many eyes saw the article under construction. :)

DMB112 (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Just got concerned when I saw a substantial amount of information being removed without a summary. Didn't mean to template a regular, though. Skarz (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding the "Schools ranked by academic measures" sections onto the ACC, Pac12, etc. articles and stop adding the poorly formatted links to these sections onto the relevant university pages. I've disputed your addition, as has UW Dawgs, so you are now edit warring. I've given you my reason on my talk page, at the college football wikiproject, and here. If you persist in your edits, this will be considered edit warring.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read the college football talk page. No one wants these tables but you. Stop reverting me.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:DMB112 reported by User:Ryulong (Result: ). Thank you. —Ryulong (琉竜) 16:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting already. You are only making things worse.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're impossible. Why are you doing this? DMB112 (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I agree with everyone else at that talk page who says that they're unnecessary. User:UW Dawgs thought they were useless. User:JonRidinger thought they were useless. User:GrapedApe thought they were useless. User:Dcheagle thought they were useless. I think they're useless. You have not listened to a single one of them and that is ridiculous. You have pushed your edits for too long and now I'm standing up to them. Do not revert me, again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have compromised, consolidated tables, removed information. The tables will remain. Let's talk on your talk page please. Calm down. DMB112 (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. You have not compromised. I see "Remove the tables" messages from 4 days ago on the talk page. There is a clear consensus against inclusion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have consolidated two tables, I have removed SAT subject data and admitted that info wasn't needed. DMB112 (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter. The tables as a whole are not wanted by WP:CFB stop restoring the sections at Pacific-12 Conference and Big Ten Conference just because I did not use them as examples for your edit warring. Stop reverting me entirely. You are acting against consensus and disrupting the project.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting whatever I can. Clearly you're an expert in edit warring. It's true that many have disagreed about the tables, however, I have addressed concerns and improved on them to reach standardization. DMB112 (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert anything anymore. I honestly don't care if I end up getting blocked as well because of this. Everyone has disagreed with the inclusion of the tables. Your "addressing of concerns" does nothing when they do not want them at all and you are just removing things from them. Do not restore them again. Do not revert me again. This is disrupting the project. When you are reverted you do not keep reverting over and over as you (and I) have been doing. You start a discussion on what was reverted and cease all further editing.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have problems. You need to be blocked again. Why won't you just discuss civilly on the talk page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by DMB112 (talk • contribs)

If I end up being blocked, there is nothing that will prevent you from being blocked as well. I have discussed civilly. You have ignored that discussion and kept restoring your preferred edits while I have been acting on the consensus formed at WT:CFB.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that WP:OWNTALK states that I am free to remove comments from my own talk page and reverting a comment is considered evidence of it having been read.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. DMB112 (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Back on topic. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Ryulong (琉竜) 17:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked twice. I wouldn't be talking my friend. I hope you're happy. Happy holidays DMB112 (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 14 days for edit warring on Big Ten Conference and Pacific-12 Conference. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Nick (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DMB112 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

While I admit reverting edits multiple times, user Ryulong is a repeating offender. He has caused much trouble before. For my edits, consensus was reached on the college football talk page. I explained my views, I have created articles on Wikipidea and have been editing for some time. I don't mean any harm. As a matter of fact, the second I was blocked, I was in the middle of compromising further on the issue that started this revert war. Please reconsider, or please write back here. DMB112 (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I reviewed your previous block log and can see two blocks in the past four weeks for edit warring, it is apparent that short blocks do not deter you from edit warring, that alone would have been sufficient to justify a longer block. The situation was made considerably worse as there isn't any real evidence of restraint, with nine reverts in 24 hours on Big Ten Conference, nine reverts in 24 hours on Pacific-12 Conference, four reverts in 24 hours on Big 12 Conference and a technical breach of 3RR which was resolved on Southeastern Conference. You've made approximately 100 edits today reverting Ryulong on various articles including the listed articles above. This is so egregious a breach of policy that I consider two weeks to be lenient. Nick (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I see. Fine, understood. Is there any way for me to "press more chargers" against Ryulong? He is a repeating offender. He won't stop even after the block. What can be done? I'm not familiar with all the complex traditions and rules of Wikipidea. Is there something I can do? I noticed you copied and pasted the same thing on Ryulong's page. Can you please address my concern? I'm sorry to take away your time. DMB112 (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When your block expires, you may wish to initiate proceedings at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, raise a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard and pursue the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Please use the time away from Wikipedia to calm down and make cool, level headed decisions when your block expires. I do not wish to see the situation deteriorate further. Nick (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

--

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge