User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Northwestern Law -Although 25/75 percentiles of LSAT/GPA are in fact relevant to the Northwestern Law page, I felt it was justified to put only the "median" because it would keep other top law schools consistent with each other. Some top law school pages do not list the complete 25/75 percentiles. Indeed, to a general viewer, reading a law school page that states its median only (which would be presumably high) compared to a top law school that lists both 25/50/75 can be misleading. One can be under the impression that a school that lists the 25/50/75 is inferior to a school that states its medians only. Even though that information is objective, they have been listed on these pages in a subjective manner. I believe that Wikipedia desires to become a source of objectiveness that can provide its readers with information that cannot be subjectively interpreted. With that said, either we add that 25/50/75 LSAT/GPA to all of the top law school pages, or we don't keep them at all (and only post the medians). It would be naive to believe that a reader would only look at the Northwestern Law page without viewing other law school pages as well.

-You need to pay attention. It was left at 290 when you edited it. I changed it to 259. In regards to the overall mission of Wikipedia, I will be contacting administration for clarification since you and I have obvious conflicts here. Do not edit any further until we receive word directly from Wikipedia. Or since you believe in objectiveness, why do you not begin by adding 25/50/75 info to all of the other comparable law schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasaltcoffee (talkcontribs) 16:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to learn to read. My edit of 06-12-13 at 23:07 prior to your edit of 06-13-13 at 03:50 clearly said "259," not "290." See: Do not pretend that you can instruct me on whether I can or cannot edit a page. Also, I have been adding data to other law schools' pages. Try using the search function. But it does not become incumbent on me to add something to EVERY page simply because I provide additional data in one or more pages. Wikipedia is an incomplete and ongoing project, and at any given time, some pages will be more well-developed than others. Your idea that we should eliminate accurate and relevant data for the sake of "consistency" with other less well-developed pages is ludicrous, as this sort of operating philosophy would rapidly lead to the ossification of the project. (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The message above does not correlate with the edit message. The point was that you claim to be adding accurate, relevant data yet you provided neither references nor exact information. I am not pretending to be in a position of authority to instruct on when and how you can edit. I never made such a claim. I simply stated since both you and I have different views of the purpose of Wikipedia, that it would be advisable for us to wait until we receive word from administration. If not for me, you should do it out of respect for Wikipedia since their pages affect their reputation. Furthermore, the notion that you should add something to EVERY page because you provide additional data in one or more pages is blatantly false and unfeasible. That was not my conclusion. I stated that you should add the same 25/50/75 to other comparable law schools, which presumably, is the top 14 law schools. 14 law schools does not equate to EVERY law school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're really struggling with basic reading comprehension. The link displaying the edit differences clearly shows that you whined about the inclusion of "290" instead of "259" AFTER I had already included the correct info in my last edit. The issue was utterly moot when you complained about it. What's so difficult for you to understand here? I mistakenly included "290" in my first edit, you then corrected it while also deleting plenty of new and pertinent information in your subsequent edit, and I ultimately retained the correct number of "259" BEFORE you whined about it. The fact that I made one factual error, later corrected, in including new information does not invalidate the inclusion of the remaining accurate and cited information. (And please remember that you reverted edits to uncited information about the "top 2%" until I informed you that a 170 was no longer a 98th percentile score. Only then did you seek out a source, and a pretty shoddy one at that.)
And your initial message said nothing about whether further edits were "advisable" or whether we "should" do something or not. You said, "Do not edit any further until we receive word directly from Wikipedia." For that reason, I responded in the manner above.
Finally, let me be more clear about the extent of my responsibilities for editing other pages: it does not become incumbent upon me to add information to ANY other page simply because I've added expanded information to one page. And yet, when the section structure is similar, or when the existing language makes for easy substitution, I have added the same information to numerous other pages, including the pages of "top" law schools. The fact that I'm not presently interested in restructuring and adding sections to pages that do not currently easily accommodate the new information does not limit me in adding the language to one or more other pages. The fact that different pages will at times be inconsistent with one another in structure and extent of development is part-and-parcel of the evolving nature of the Wikipedia project. Another editor is free to add to other pages so that they may resemble another page with expanded information; another editor is not free, however, to remove accurate, cited information from one page in order to make it more "consistent" with less well-developed pages, as you did. Also, the idea that the obligation you're insisting on (which doesn't exist) would simply stop with the top 14 law schools is ridiculous; the pages on or near the border of the stopping point would obviously need to be amended as well (schools ranked, say, 15-18), lest this dubious risk of readers being mislead persist. This would ultimately mean that an editor has the responsibility to expand ALL pages, since a "border region" around the stopping point would always otherwise exist. (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Texas Longhorns men's basketball may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • with at least 50 years in Division I, with an all-time win-loss record of 1699-1005 (.628).<ref>{{Cite web|url= | format=PDF |title=NCAA
  • championship (35), trailing only [[Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball|Illinois]] (40).<ref>{{Cite web|url= | format=PDF |title=NCAA

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)