User talk:Bob schwartz

good job with the edits on the owu page. Wiki amateur

owu

owu is not really affiliated with the church...the connection is on paper only. are you a student at owu? Froshowu

http://www.owu.edu/about.html says "OWU maintains an active affiliation with the UMC", and OWU is listed on http://www.gbhem.org/gbhem/colleges.html. That seems like enough of an affiliation to at least be listed in "Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the United Methodist Church". Do you know of a source that further describes the extent of the affiliation? Bob schwartz 21:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two Princetons

"2006 Bob schwartz (I'd say the extra Boro/Twp stuff is off-point bloat, esp in the intro.)"

That isn't true - the two princetons are not two "neighborhoods" - they are individual, separate municipalities that share a few things. This distinction is extremely important. WhisperToMe 05:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that the article about the high school needn't explain the Two Princetons; that belongs in the Princeton, NJ article. Many refer to them as one community that historically happens to be 2 municipalities. But for as long as I've lived here, I've never heard anyone say the distinction is "extremely" important. Bob schwartz 17:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - That's okay. It doesn't need to explain the two Princetons. It should, however, mention it is within the borough of Princeton specifically in the first paragraph. Welcome to the world of encyclopedias! Even if the distinction isn't made that much casually, in the world of an encyclopedia it must be made. (The Borough provides its own fire service, police service, etc) WhisperToMe 17:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Junction sttaion

Never assume. As my 2004 source for Princeton Junction (NJT station) only listed that year's boardings, I assumed the 2005 source was the same. I will change to refect that, and I agree that 2006 boardings will see a steep decline. Alansohn 18:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overlapping edit

Bob,

I was still working on the NYC Subway article and was correcting my typos when you started editing. I recommend that next time you look at the time the last edit was done before going in. But thanks anyway.

--Allan 17:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Thanks for helping us improve the article. Your edit was on my to-do list anyway. :) WikiprojectOWU 18:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

It will be nice if you put more controversial entries/edits for discussion first. You may have noticed that the article has enjoyed consensus on several controversial issues recently due to a robust discussion and involvement of outside admins on how to handle sections and references properly. It has gone well. It will be nice if this mode gets preserved. WikiprojectOWU 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyediting. Do you think that we still need the tag on that section? WikiprojectOWU 02:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I think the issue of whether someone is extremely famous or not will invoke investigation of two issues. One is the issue of perspective and who makes the judgement call and the second issue is one of values and how we, as impartial observers, value different aspects of life in general. Third, and very likely the most important issue, is how society values them? Peale is currently in the Alumni section and I think it is only fair to keep it that way. It might be interesting to pose for discussion whether his contributions in the spiritual world are more important than other people's contributions in the worlds of science, politics, education and so on. This, without a doubt, will generate an unambigously political discussion and a very controversial one as well. If you are a deeply religious person, you might say that religion is very important. On the other hand, if you are a humanist, you very likely will disagree. Most people will opt for the middle ground on placing a judgement call. I think focusing on his work without redundant characterizations will reduce debate on the controversial topic of religion and its importance of life. WikiprojectOWU 19:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OWU Alumni Dates

Thanks - I did not look at the OWU Alumni List article. I went by either the linked WP article for the person or, for the red link names, the linked source article on the internet. Ruhrfisch 02:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep it cool

Regarding Dr Peale's article, please read the most important general editing guidelines in case of disagreements at Wikipedia:Stay cool and also visit Harmonious Editing Club.
Trade2tradewell 19:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pell grants

Let me know how you decide to phrase the idea. I lean towards language that doesn't word "top something". The essence of this measure is to measure the degree of representation of underprivilleged groups, so it might even be ironic to say that OWU is near the top of that group. On the other hand, putting it in the context of other institutions that might ring a bell in people's mind for attracting ethnic and economic minorities might be a more meaningful way to convey the idea that OWU is doing a good job attracting economic minorities, too. On a another note, what's going on with the Peale article? I saw a comment above related to a controversy developing on that page. WikiprojectOWU 16:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Do you have a source for what you claim? WikiprojectOWU 02:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Hi Bob schwartz,

I responded on my Talk page. I wanted to leave you a comment here as well. Check with Lovelac7 or Bluedog423 on whether it will be appropriate to include the CTLC reference that you mentioned. I am with you if they say that it is fine. WikiprojectOWU 21:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]