User talk:Flyte35

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

College Tuition in the United States[edit]

See the 2014 discussion about this topic.

You did not keep your word, and this has been reported to those who originally came to a community consensus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ElKevbo&diff=664578231&oldid=664123749#You_gave_your_word.2C_Kevin.3B_now_cashing_in...

I am angry at you not keeping your word here. (Well, technically, ElKevbo was the one who said that the edit was OK, but you, by your silence, implicit gave your support to the consensus that had been discussed, namely that if some future editor could find reliable sources, then that edit could be included.) I went back and fixed what the 3 of you left undone, namely that I found some sources to cite. Now, keep your word, already, and abide by the community consensus to avoid an all out edit-war, k?

This is why I am not registering an account: people not keeping their word, and over quite innocuous things at that!

96.59.151.55 (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I will add that, while Kevin makes a good point that the original edit might have probably been given "undue weight," I would point out that not only were 4 (independent and uniquely different -- and reliable!) sources found to back the edit, but I, myself, think the edit was a good one: This is a good argument in support of the particular recommendation cited, loan forgiveness, in this instance. (My views - or lack of views - on the merits of loan forgiveness are moot, and the only thing relevant here is the fact that support for that recommendation could be found from many reliable sources.) Thus, not only do I think you violated Wikipedia rules (and good morals for not keeping your word here), but moreover, I think that, as a practical matter, this edit adds value to the article and is not overly off-topic minute in relevance or off-topic, but key to the recommendation cited in the article.. 96.59.151.55 (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
No one ever said that if you find a reliable source then we can include a line about how loan forgiveness is not inflationary. There was no "agreement." I don't think it's useful or necessary to include that line even if you did find reliable sourcing. Beyond that, though, you haven't found a reliable source for what you want to include. None of the sources you provided indicated that loan forgiveness is not inflationary.
If you wish to continue this discussion please do so at Talk:College tuition in the United States.Flyte35 (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
While I think that you all did, indeed, not keep or hold to the consensus reached in prior talk, I think your suggestion here has merit. Perhaps, if I have time, I will. Thx.96.59.129.109 (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Update[edit]

A request was made here, and the request was granted here in a vandalism case that involves you; fair notice is given.96.59.141.200 (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone who is afraid of honest debate has made the Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Clarifying inaccessible to an unregistered editor (such as I am). I could register an account, under a fake name (in order to edit on that "Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard"), if I were dishonest or otherwise bad, but I refuse to do so. Nonetheless, I wanted to give you the heads up that I replied to your comments both in the college tuition page, as well as here on Rhododendrite's page.

Heads up, Flyte35: I replied in 2 places, since the main page blocked me from editing. So much for "honest discussion!"96.59.146.211 (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why registering an account would be dishonest, but OK. As Rhododendrites explained, editors didn't make the pages semi-protected because of you. They appeared to have made the decision because another anonymous user was editing disruptively. It will be unprotected tomorrow, so you should be able to edit it again. Flyte35 (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. I meant that if I registered an account under a fake name, simply to be able to edit on that "Reliable Sources" page, that would be dishonest. Also, I owe you an apology: I found out from the other editor, Rhododendrite, that there was some sort of edit war with vandalism and/or removal of comments, and that the page was protected against unregistered IP addresses. I was stupid to assume that "semi-protection status" was due to me, when I was one of many other editors there, and I apologize for the left-handed insults to all of you in that regard. However, when I quoted Watts, Collinge, and Mockler, in the edit in question, I quoted all 3 of them correctly, and I would like your take on this point of disagreement. You said that Watts' statement was different from Collinge's and Mocker's, and I agree, but so what? All 3 of them supported their arguments that loan forgiveness was not bad. One (Watts) said that it was not inflationary, and the other 2 (Collinge and Mockler) said that the lack of it was inflationary. I quoted them correctly, cited them correctly, made sure that their statements were related to the issue (loan forgiveness), and ensured that all 3 plus Investopedia (a 4th source) were "reliable" sources, insofar as they all were cited to numerous times on blogs other than their own blog. So, what, again, is your problem with restoration of the entirety of your edit?96.59.146.211 (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
PS: I was attempting to apologize for my misunderstanding about the semi-protection of the page, but you beat me to it, and i could not post my reply due to an "edit conflict." But, yes, you are right: it was my misunderstanding, and a stupid and short-sighted one on my part: I was narrow-minded in my thinking to assume the block was because of me.96.59.146.211 (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Well it's just a screen name. Most everyone edits in Wikipedia under screen names, but whatever.
I feel like this issue has already been discussed quite extensively on the talk page at College tuition in the United States, but my major reason for removing this part is that the sources cited as Collinge and Mockler argue only that a lack of consumer protections resulted in tuition inflation. That isn't the same thing as "loan forgiveness wouldn't cause tuition inflation." That's WP:SYNTH. You're combining multiple sources to try to reach a conclusion about loan forgiveness. Those sources don't say anything about loan forgiveness. Flyte35 (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I never said that the article should draw any conclusions. (Nor did I place any such edit in there.) I merely quoted 3 advocates, whose statements were "on point" as far as being on subject, and not off-topic. Thus, my edits were related (and not off-topics).96.59.146.211 (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, I am confused at how my edits were WP:SYNTH: The article, as I left it, never stated any such conclusions. It merely (as it should) quoted reliable sources (which said what i wanted to, but could not, say) -- in this case, sources were were not mentioned solely on their own blogs, but rather cited numerous places. (That I got 3 sources shows I was not placing an edit in ther that has undue weight either.)96.59.146.211 (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
As I said, my major reason for removing this part is that the section is about loan forgiveness, and those sources say nothing about loan forgiveness. What you wanted to include was "Other advocates have argued the same thing from the opposite angle..." They are not, because they're not saying anything about loan forgiveness. The section is about loan forgiveness, that's why it's inappropriate, and WP:SYNTH. Flyte35 (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You said: "They are not, because they're not saying anything about loan forgiveness." They, the other 3 advocates, do make statements about loan forgiveness: Watts is quoted as saying: ""Since forgiveness does not require the printing of new dollars (i.e., "too much money chasing too few goods")," -- Collinge is quoted as saying: ""lack of consumer protections," particularly "removing bankruptcy protections,"", which applies here, since bankruptcy is a form of loan forgiveness. Mockler's statement about Consumer Protections included Bankruptcy, a form of loan forgiveness. I hope this helps clarify.96.59.146.211 (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

New activity; see talk page for this article, and, for sake of simplicity, let's keep discussions there, kk? Thx.96.59.146.211 (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The other editor, Rhododendrites, was kind enough to weigh in at my request. He added a section to the article talk page here: Talk:College tuition in the United States#breaking things down. Just figured I'd give you a heads up in case you wanted to participate.96.59.148.191 (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding your change of the title above: (cur | prev) 02:54, 8 July 2015‎ Flyte35 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (104,520 bytes) (-63)‎ . . (→‎College tuition in the United States: it wasn't vandalism, everyone participating agreed this is a content dispute) (undo) -- My apologies: I over-reacted. (I felt I was right in the edit disputes, and didn't properly assess your motivations long enough to be accurate here, and so I wrongly inferred vandalism; my apologies.) Moreover, while I still would prefer to have a quoted and cited source that bankruptcy (and other standard consumer protections) are not inflationary (either re tuition inflation or overall inflation, which includes tuition as a part of it), nonetheless, on review, I think that this edit is not totally necessary -- simply because many sources clearly state that lack of standard consumer protections does lead to inflation, and so any sane reader can easily infer that the presence of the same would yield just the opposite, namely deflation, not inflation. Anyhow, I find it odd that you haven't weighed in more in the Talk:College_tuition_in_the_United_States, but that's OK. You're at least moving as fast as you can, I'm sure, as you surely have other things besides just this page to deal with (even tho I deem it an important page on Wikipedia).96.59.142.135 (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Resolution Information about looking for a job removed. All edits proposed by the the above editor reverted.Flyte35 (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Southern belle[edit]

Southern Belles were 19th century, and it says as much on the link Hoop skirt which is essentially an extended disambiguation page that the mid-19th century hoop skirt was the crinoline. Just asking if you could please reconsider your reversion as the actual crinoline page gives a far wider, more detailed description of the fashion. All best, Mabalu (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The words are not synonymous. Hoop skirt is the more commonly understood term to today's readers. Since hoop skirt is the term used in the article, and the article on hoop skirt explains there are different types, it's perfectly clear to the reader as is. Flyte35 (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Mabalu (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Creighton University[edit]

Not sure why you're hating on Creighton and deleting a bunch of stuff.

Clearly cited states from soruces directly (http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/regional-universities-midwest)and from university (http://www.creighton.edu/about/rankings-reviews). Other sources on page are from the university cite as well.

Chill out. Batak11 (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)batak

As I wrote in the edits, the sourcing did not support the text. More specifically, the sourcing did not indicate that the school was "named among the top 32 'Academic Programs to Look For'" (the phrase "Academic Programs to Look For" was not used in the sourcing provided). The sourcing also did not indicate that the school has "been ranked no 1 by U.S. News & World Report for Midwest Regional Universities for 12 straight years" (the sourcing indicates only that the school is currently ranked no 1 by U.S. News & World Report for...).Flyte35 (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Carol Marbin Miller[edit]

Hi. I can provide reliable sources for Carol Marbin Miller's graduation from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. Here are a few: 1- https://ire.org/events-and-training/event/1574/1924/ 2- http://www.editorandpublisher.com/Awards/Article/Miami-Herald-Staff-Writer-Receives-Pulliam-First-Amendment-Award 3- http://article.wn.com/view/2015/04/02/8216innocents_lost_8217_series_wins_another_investigative_jo/

I have asked Carol what name is on her certificate, in case I can find a graduation listing from Columbia. Otherwise, I am hoping this will satisfy your criteria. Please LMK. Thanks.

Hilda S Mitrani (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source, you should add the information to Miller's entry. None of the links you provided, however, mentions Columbia. Flyte35 (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Vellum[edit]

Having looked at a few of your recent edits I have to say that a high proportion of them seem unhelpful to the project to me. You mainly remove material, which is a classic warning sign. Your judgement as to what is "POV" seems idiosyncratic and often poor. You feel justified in removing uncited material, on a somewhat random basis. This is generally not very helpful - unfortunately there is not much difference between the overall accuracy of cited and uncited material on Wikipedia, and unfortunately the proportion of uncited material is high. Removing it very often just leaves gaps that weaken the article. This isn't 2006, and if we ever had hordes of editors willing to chase down references tagged as missing we don't now. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to Vellum. The line I removed was tagged as an opinion. That's why I removed it. It's also entirely appropriate to removed material that's united, since verifiability is a core principle of Wikipedia:
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.Flyte35 (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk: Vellum Flyte35 (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Vita Sackville-West[edit]

You deleted information from the article on Vita Sackville-West, giving as a reason "information not supported by sourcing". The said information was clearly referenced with a footnote leading to an external web page that had imagery of the items in question online. Calling this "information not supported by sourcing" is unfounded and appears as if it was deleted in order to spark an argument. Cyan22 (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The information you wish to include is "An English Heritage plaque on their house in Ebury Street, London SW1, commemorates both Sackville-West and Harold Nicolson. Her cremated remains were placed in the Sackville family vault at Withyham Parish Church in East Sussex. " The link provided is just a picture of the grave. It does not indicate anything about an English Heritage plaque on a house in Ebury Street. It also does not indicate that Sackville-West's ashes are in a family vault and that the vault is at Withyham Parish Church in East Sussex. Flyte35 (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
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) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Middlebury College[edit]

Feel free to propose new criteria for whether people should be included in Middlebury College‎. But the criteria - old, current, or proposed - can't contradict core policies e.g., WP:N. ElKevbo (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what someone's working on now, but the earlier guideline in the article: "Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here" didn't contradict wikipedia policy. WP:N states that for lists within article "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." But, again, please discuss on the article's talk page. Flyte35 (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The policy clearly states that "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." In practice, we often make a (mental and unspoken) shortcut through WP:N to WP:DUE but that isn't clear to new editors. We should be explicit if we're going to set a high bar for inclusion in an article and it shouldn't be implicitly based on "notability" but other criteria that (a) don't contradict policies and (b) are understandable for all editors and are clearly more stringent that notability in the Wikipedia sense e.g., has had worldwide impact, most prominent in their field. ElKevbo (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Please discuss this over in the talk page for the article. Flyte35 (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Burr Steers[edit]

Keep fighting the good fight. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)