User talk:Contributor321

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

Contributor321, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Contributor321! 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! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding endowment data[edit]


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.

The 2012 dataset will be released next week. I will update the values then.

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

April 2013[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. 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) 05:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The Cal Poly Barnstar[edit]

-- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  15:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Endowment link[edit]

Thanks for updating the endowment figures with the new NACUBO info. Just so you know, the link you are posting is off a little and goes to a deadlink. The "f" in PDF is missing at the end. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Noted and fixed. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Contributor321 (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thanks for copy-editing!Xscontrib (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks you for being a friend! - Lacmaboingo (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

Information icon Please ensure that you avoid WP:WIKIHOUNDING. You have previously been WP:EDITWARRING on Jessica Barth, and you have recently been doing it on Mercator (retail). Your actions, along with my own edit-diff here, have been bookmarked and will be used as future proof of your WP:DISRUPTION. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

How about assuming good faith and, since you're again in another content dispute, working towards a consensus instead of getting defensive? See WP:COOL. Contributor321 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I have assumed WP:GOODFAITH in my previous disagreements with you, when you were rightfully corrected on them: [1]. After that event, your recent repeating actions of the same-old behavior and WP:WIKIHOUNDING my edits to another article, lead me to assume your dishonest motives. Thank you for your understanding of my trying to protect the interests of Wikipedia. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome! I'm always glad to help out a new editor. Contributor321 (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
For the record, User: 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 was blocked for 2 weeks for disruptive editing on 03 April 2015 (see for background), is a suspected sock puppet (see [2]) and has been involved in editing disputes with at least 15 other editors according to [3]. Contributor321 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Duke's wealth[edit]

My point is that finance is under the administration part which belongs to the second paragraph of the lead where such info. was transferred to. I didn't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't quite understand your point, nor did I notice that the 2nd paragraph already contained the information. I've reverted my addition to the 3rd paragraph, so now the information appears only once. Sorry about the confusion. Contributor321 (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Trinity College[edit]

Edited the Fraternities and Sororities section because it is inaccurate (no AKA chapter here, the name of 'Cleo of Alpha Chi Literary Society' is just 'Cleo of Alpha Chi') (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I added back the material I deleted. Contributor321 (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ranking the Rankings?[edit]

Hi there Contributor321. I've noticed that you've been going around Wikipedia doing an unsubstantiated ranking of the college rankings moving some rankings to the bottom and calling them "obscure rankings." Care to explain? You've also been following me around changing all of my edits. Please explain that as well.--Ticktock01 (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

In the years I've edited Wikipedia college pages, I've never heard of the "Payscale and CollegeNet's Social Mobility Index" until I saw your contributions, and I suspect most readers haven't either. Placing a college's "Payscale and CollegeNet's Social Mobility Index" ranking as the very 1st sentence in the Ranking section, ahead of widely known ones such as U.S. News & World Report, Forbes, ARWU, QS etc. gives it an importance that is not appropriate given it's relative obscurity, and smacks of promotion. I've therefore moved your contributions to later in the paragraphs. No disrespect to you or "Payscale and CollegeNet's Social Mobility Index" intended. Contributor321 (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

What you've personally heard of isn't a measure of anything and isn't a just reason for you to think you can mandate that the rankings be ranked in accordance to your unsubstantiated opinion, nor is it a just reason to stalk me.--Ticktock01 (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I've explained my position; please explain yours. Why do you think it IS appropriate for the very 1st sentence in every Ranking section you've edited to be about "Payscale and CollegeNet's Social Mobility Index"? Contributor321 (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Why not? It never crossed my mind until I saw you stalking me and doing your own personal ranking of the rankings.--Ticktock01 (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem I have is when Payscale and CollegeNet's Social Mobility Index's ranking is widely at variance with other rankings, yet is displayed first. Let's take your edit of Yale University as an example. Yale is ranked in the top 10 in the U.S. by the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Forbes and U.S. News & World Report. Yet the very first sentence in the Rankings section after your edit read "Yale was ranked the 440th top college in the United States by Payscale and CollegeNet's Social Mobility Index college rankings." This runs afoul of Wikipedia's "Undue Weight" principle (WP:UNDUE), which states "that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.... Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement ...." Contributor321 (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Rankings are entirely at the mercy of the metrics used, so you're comparing apples to oranges by comparing those other rankings to the Social Mobility Index. Also, as the Social Mobility Index was the most recently published, it is the most up to date and thus quite natural to put it up top.--Ticktock01 (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

UCLA Flagship[edit]

Thanks for the info. It seems pretty dubious. But more than enough to stay on wikipedia. I appreciate it! (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Duke colors[edit]

I don't mean to be rude and I don't want to revert your edits yet, but it is clear that the academic side uses #001A57 per the Style Guide and History of Duke Blue; #0736A4 is for athletics. Athletics uses the #0736A4 and the Academic part side uses #001A57. Corkythehornetfan 19:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch and politely pointing out the error. Mea culpa - I failed to notice that "the official Duke blue for the web is Hex color 001A57" is stated, plain as day, in the Style Guide. I've self-reverted. Contributor321 (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In response to these cuts, ASU underwent several rounds of reorganizations[edit]

321, the citation you give doesn't back up the statement you wrote, "In response to these cuts ...." My understanding from the university and other accounts is that the reorganizations were part of a strategy already in place, and were not in response to the cuts. The citation you give from ASU News bears that out: "The changes are driven primarily by opportunities for intellectual synergy, but they also will result in $2.7 million in cost savings for the university." That story is reporting the continuation of a plan that began six months before the state announced its budget cuts. The chronology doesn't support your edit by several months.

Also, there is not, and never has been, an ASU campus in Payson.

Can you justify with citations the reason you added these two pieces of information back in? If not, I request that you leave them deleted. Rathfulman (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Regarding Payson, the text in the article doesn't state there is or has been an ASU campus in Payson, but rather there was an intention to create one: "... the university continued its campaign to expand the West and Polytechnic Campuses and establishing a set of low-cost, teaching-focused extension campuses in Lake Havasu City and Payson, Arizona." I've added a citation verifying that. (By the way, the project is still alive, according to this recent article
As far as the point regarding "In response to these cuts ....", I've added two citations (and deleted the erroneous one). Contributor321 (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected, 321. Thanks for taking the time. Rathfulman (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

How to provide a source on deleted things.[edit]

How do i provide a source on something i deleted. As in the case with Ben's Chili Bowl and Bill Cosby, I was actually the one who added this, but this was added by mistake since it was a defacement not done by Ben's chili bowl. Where do i provide a deleted source ?

I just noticed that the source at the end of the sentence has nothing to do with Ben's Chili Bowl but rather that Walt Disney World removed his statue. Why not just rewrite the sentence to reflect that? That takes care of the Ben's Chili Bowl problem while retaining encyclopedic information.Contributor321 (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

As for honorary degrees i thou ghetto ht it was common knowledge that Cosby probably has more than 100, but 57 can be proven since 1985. I wil provide that source, but you deleted the reason why the degrees were rescinded as well, is it not common knowledge that his degrees were rescinded because of allegations of sexual misconduct and/or immoral behavior or does that need to be sourced as well, that's a lot of sources especially s ince Cosby had his 10th honorary degree rescinded earlier today. I can source whatever but my main question is where do you source something that was incorrect to begin with (Ben's Chili Bowl ) ?Wwdamron (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Common knowledge" is not sufficient per WP:VERIFY, so please add a reliable source for the number of degrees. I simply undid your entire contribution because the claim of more than 50 degrees was unsourced. I don't have a problem with adding back the statement as to why the degrees were rescinded, so feel free to do so (no need to add more sources, since those degrees that have been rescinded in the article's list have sources that back up why). Contributor321 (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and advisement.Wwdamron (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Contributor321 (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

University Seals issue[edit]

Hi, we are currently having an issue over whether to include the caption: "Seal of (Insert college name here)" over here: I saw you supported my edit. Would you consider supporting my argument that the documentation is in fact necessary on university wiki pages? They may mass revert all my edits otherwise. Thanks. Threemonths (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@Threemonths: FYI this is clear canvassing. You should not rally other editors to support your arguments. Sam Walton (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


Please read WP:SOCK. I mentioned this because of WP:DUCK. If indeed you are engaging in sockpuppetry, your best move is to acknowledge it and agree to stop doing it. As noted before, we are happy to have editors who learn from their mistakes. Rklawton (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Are you sure it was meant for me (not someone else) and if so, why? I'm totally at a loss as to why I'd receive this message. Please explain. Thanks. Contributor321 (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes. You and Threemonths look a lot like a Duck. It could be coincidence, or it could be a Duck. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of Sock just in case. We've got folks who check for that sort of thing. They have access to additional tools that allow them to see IP addresses of registered accounts (like yours and mine). If they see two accounts using the same IP addresses along with a few other indicators, those accounts will end up blocked. That's why it's best (if Sock is the case), to say "oops, my bad" so we can take less drastic action and make things right. Live and learn. Some folks do, some folks don't. If you and Threemonths are different people, then you don't have anything to worry about - and you're just that much smarter about Socks. Rklawton (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You, sir, have impugned my honor and besmirched my good name. I demand satisfaction - tomorrow, be at the levee at noon. Your choice of swords or pistols.
The Nam Phi Sword. Since there's only one, we can take turns hacking away. Just to be sporting, you can wield it first. Rklawton (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Kidding around aside, I'm not engaged in sockpuppetry and request that you engage whoever checks IP addresses of registered accounts and compare mine and Threemonths'. I don't like your accusation hanging over my head and would like my name cleared. Contributor321 (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
We don't do checks just to satisfy curiosity. Don't think of this as an accusation. If I were accusing you, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Think of this as a courtesy heads up and nothing more. I do understand this has been an awkward conversation, but since you haven't registered a private e-mail, that avenue was out. I did my best with what I had available. Rklawton (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)