User talk:Flyte35

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

Numbering of U.S. presidents[edit]


Thanks for experimenting with the page Harry S. Truman on Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added obviously incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in our encyclopedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Calvin Coolidge page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Coemgenus 21:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the White House, Harry S. Truman was the thirty-third president of the US. If you have more reliable sources than that, you'll need to bring them to the talk page and seek consensus. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolution: While there appears to be some support for dating the presidents such that Grover Cleveland counts as only the 22nd president (not the 22nd and 24th) See: [1] for instance, the opinion clearly not standard. All edits were reverted.Flyte35 (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Image problems[edit]

Image tagging for Image:Duvalier-7.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Duvalier-7.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolution: Image removed.Flyte35 (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:BaptistChurch.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:BaptistChurch.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolution: Image removed.Flyte35 (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Mama_Doc.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mama_Doc.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolution: Image removed.Flyte35 (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Duvalier-7.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Duvalier-7.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Strangerer (Talk) 15:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolution: Image removed.Flyte35 (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Linda Darling-Hammond[edit]

I see that you have added in content to Dr. Darling-Hammond's page that was removed. That content was removed because it is not a statement of fact on the work of Dr. Darling Hammond, but an opinion posted by someone with objections to Darling-Hammond's research. This is a biography page, and that study is one of dozens of studies Dr. Darling-Hammond has conducted over her long career. To give it that level of detail without doing so with her other studies on principal education, student assessment, school redesign, district redesign, and leadership preparation is inappropriate on her biographical page. As I suggested to others who object to her research, there is no problem with objections and debates, but those shoud take place on the page covering that topic (i.e., the TFA page), not Darling-Hammond's biographical page. If you wish to discuss this, I am reachable at Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbaramckenna (talkcontribs) 18:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolution: Compromise reached. See Controversy section of Talk:Linda Darling-Hammond.Flyte35 (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Only warning[edit]

Your recent editing to Linda Darling-Hammond has been problematic. Please cease restoring that section by edit warring. Until you can demonstrate explicitly (ie. via an article RfC) that consensus supports readding the content, you cannot restore it; this is specifically noted at our policy regarding biographies of living persons. Please also aquaint yourself with this decision. Daniel (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolution: Compromise reached. See Controversy section of Talk:Linda Darling-Hammond.Flyte35 (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Bettag[edit]

I undid your removal of Bettag from the Columbia J School "notable alumni" list. Bettag is one of the most important and respected producers of tv journalism in the industry today. While the list has him as former EP of Nightline, he is now the EP of Ted Koppel's Discovery Channel documentaries. It is an odd lacuna in the popular understanding of who does what in television that correspondents -- no matter how obscure -- are considered notable and those who are often much more responsible for the content of what we all see are overlooked. Bettag is an important figure in tv journalism and, as such, belongs on this list. Roregan (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolution: Tom Bettag retained in Notable alumni section of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.Flyte35 (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Columbia Graduate School of Journalism[edit]

Hey, Flyte, what's up with your pruning of the Columbia Journalism School "notable alumni" list? Your edits do not seem to be informed by knowing much about who is or is not notable in the world of journalism -- or at least TV journalism. Aside from Bettag, above, you now excise Phil Scheffler. Scheffler was the senior producer of 60 Minutes for many years. I understand (like you am irritated by) the unparalleled opportunity Wikipedia offers to puff up the importance of people who are truly not notable. But I think your bar is set improperly here. In the world in which the Columbia Journalism School operates, both of these guys are, in fact, very important people. While Wikipedia may not have (nor, possibly, need) independent bios of them their inclusion in a list of people who are important and notable is appropriate.

I agree that not every person who ever graduated from CJS who went on to get a job in the industry should be included in a notable alumni list, there are important leaders in the industry who are worthy of mention -- particularly in this context. Scheffler, like Bettag, is one of them. Again, I do applaud your diligence and share many of your sentiments. It is entirely possible that you are in the journalism industry, but are a member of a generation that has yet to learn about the people who have led it up until now. If so, I suggest you treat this as a learning opportunity. These are the guys who shaped the journalistic world we live in. If you don't recognize their names, that may illustrate a gap in your own knowledge. Before you assume such mentions as mistaken attempts to inflate someone's importance, find out who they are. Once you have, then your assessments of who should be excised may become more reliable. Roregan (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


Re: Your idea that people are notable on lists because they have no separate article already devoted to them misses one of the main ways that Wikipedia grows. Quite often the biographies of people follow their inclusion in lists of things like notable alumni and award winners and the like. We're dealing with a constantly-changing and growing body of knowledge here. As you have explained, you look for people in lists of notables who don't have independent articles and then remove the mentions of them without having any idea who those people are. How is that helpful? As for creating articles about those people, while I appreciate your suggestion that I take your excisions as an assignment sheet for myself, I have other things to do right now. In the meantime, I reiterate my suggestion that you learn from this experience. There are reasons these people are notable, even if you don't know them. Roregan (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolution: see re: Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism at User talk:Roregan. Philip Scheffler continues to have no Wikipedia entry.Flyte35 (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

House of Iturbide[edit]

I note it that you are editing the articles about Iturbide Family, asking for references, there is allready one external link, at least. Would you want something else? There is a lot of references about this biographies, but mainly are writed in spanish. I am making some editions about this persons in spanish wikipedia. If i add the references woul you be so kind of remove the tag ? Let me know what do you think about it. Best Regards. --Henry Knight (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please check the article about Salvador de Itúrbide y de Marzán, I allready add a few references, if you are ok with this, please remove the tag, i will add a few references more after that, i have at least 9 more, you can check the article in spanish, the one is challenged about relevance, (we have a problem with nobility in spanish wikipedia), then if you agree with this, let me know, remove the tag of references, and give me some more time, for add references in the other articles about the family, I been really busy at this time. Thank you for your time. And like you can see, english is not my first language, sorry about that. Best regards. --Henry Knight (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolution: See House of Iturbide section of User talk:Henry Knight. See also Salvador de Itúrbide y de Marzán.Flyte35 (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Gore Vidal[edit]

Sorry for that! I must have overlooked Times online ref when I was checking to see if the article is already there. Keep up the great work!Calaka (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Explanation: Referred to edits made to Gore Vidal.Flyte35 (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mexican presidents[edit]

Hi Flyte35, I've reverted a large chunk of your last edits; please take a look at Template:Succession box ("Mostly deprecated, the succession box template ought to be used only for the simplest succession lines"). That information is now written in the infobox of every Mexican president. Cheers, Esteban Zissou (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolution: See Re: Mexican presidents at User talk:Esteban Zissou. Succession boxes for several Mexican presidents restored.Flyte35 (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Imperial houses of Mexico[edit]

I explained you, references were added and you're still adding that tag, if you do it again, you'll be reported. You can't add tags just because you are not agree with the references. -- (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You should use this tag Template:Citation needed.-- (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
As I explained, there is only a reference for the first lines. The rest of the two articles, House of Iturbide and House of Habsburg-Iturbide, are unreferenced. That's why there's a tag indicating that the articles need additional sourcing. That tag should remain up until the articles are fully sourced. Does this makes sense?Flyte35 (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
All the rest of the article is referenced. If there's something you "think" is not, you should use this tag Template:Citation needed, no the other tag, because the article already has sources. -- (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that is true. Template:Citation needed is a template used to identify questionable claims that lack a citation to a reliable source.
The goal of this is to find authoritative references and then add citations. I realize that the ultimate goal is not to merely identify problems, but to fix them. But I believe both of these articles, while potential valuable, are questionable since they don't appear to rely on enough sources. Please just look at the two articles. They only have sources FOR THE FIRST LINES. What the are the sources for the rest of the paragraphs in the articles?
Listen, the aim here is not to get in a silly edit war about two articles of limited interest to most people. The aim is just to try and produce something that is accurate and of reasonably high quality. I'm probably not going to put tags back on those articles because that's going to be a frustrating process. But because apparently this is a matter of interest to you, anonymous editor, I urge you to find sourcing for the rest of the article and include footnotes. If your only source for everything in the article is [2] that's fine, but make that clear.Flyte35 (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Resolution: Essentially dropped. More sourcing added, however.

Dennis Kucinich[edit]

Hi, I saw that you are the one who changed Dennis Kucinich's wife from being listed as a British citizen to a British subject. I am wondering if there is a citation to show that she is, in fact, a subject, and not a citizen, as British subjects appear to be exceedingly rare. matt kane's brain (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I was wrong. British citizen is the correct term in this case.Flyte35 (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Resolution: My edit reverted.

Romanian alphabet[edit]

If you don't mind, at Wikipedia we talk about unsourced or POV statements, after we label them properly and wait for other people to react. We don't just remove them on the spot as if they were obvious rubbish. We also enter edit summaries, especially when we delete chunks of text from an article. — AdiJapan 08:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to undue. It was all pretty minor passive voice stuff about things being "perceived as," however. Such things are obviously problematic and very difficult to source. Large portions of the article are actually unsourced, which is understandable, particularly in a chart-heavy entry about foreign grammar, but I only removed things that proved particularly difficult to cite.Flyte35 (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Resolution: Some edits removed.

Maximilian I of Mexico[edit]

I'm trying to improve the article about Maximilian of Mexico but unfortunately, the lack of good quality photographs prevents me from beginning it. Do you have books with photos of Maximilian with good quality? --Lecen (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I generally try to stay away from photos now because I'm a little unclear on how permissions work. So I'm not really the best user to go to for help. Note that there are already 17 pictures affiliated with the article, however. I don't really think more would improve the article much.Flyte35 (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


I saw your removal of the obsolescence of tanks comment. I was the one who added the tag but I think it would be appropriate to at least say something more neutral like "Experts are conflicted about the usefulness of tanks in modern asymmetric warfare". Marcus Qwertyus 16:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't think mentioning that some people think tanks are obsolete in contemporary warfare is really appropriate in the introduction, though it's certainly good to bring that up at some point in the article. I think including a statement like that, particularity if you can source "experts are conflicted," would be valuable.Flyte35 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolution: Edit retained.

NUS School of Computing[edit]

There is a need for some sort of date at NUS School of Computing. "Current" is a vague, temporally (as opposed to "temporarily") term and is discouraged. Using "As of ..." or something like that would work. In fact, I think there is a template by that name. Just a thought. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly being more specific would be nice. "As of" would be an improvement. But "current" is a not vague. It means now. "For many years" is vague. But the precise date that the current administrator took over, etc. is not necessary. Cluttering the article up with "when" tags when like that is not an improvement.Flyte35 (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I don't think that tags are clutter if they are addressing a problem. The project is not meant to "look pretty" but rather to be accurate. "Current" only means "now" at the time it is written, which is why it is deprecated. Too many articles have the wrong name attached to a position etc precisely because it becomes set in stone and there is no context. As of, or a similar formulaic structure, is a necessity, I think. Anyway, I'll check the MOS and let you know. - Sitush (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, that was quick! WP:DATED and Wikipedia:As_of explain it fairly well. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
As I said, a date would be an improvement. The tagging, however, seems unnecessary to me since it's a relatively minor problem.Flyte35 (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:MonthlyJulAug11.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:MonthlyJulAug11.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct tag is something like Not really sure how to put this in correctly, however.Flyte35 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

[Moved to user page]

François Blanc[edit]

I may have just repeated the fix you did at Princess Marie Bonaparte ; if so, my apologies, I'm just trying to be sure it's correctly linked. - Nunh-huh 06:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Vita Sackville-West[edit]

Normally, red links are not removed from articles. WP:REDDEAL say "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name." I have no reason to believe that the red links removed from Vita Sackville-West are non-notable topics, do you? If they are plausible article topics, please return them to the article. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems decidedly unlikely to me that anyone's going to create an entries for The Eagle and the Dove, Sackville-West's dual biography of Saint Teresa of Ávila and Therese of Lisieux; Rosamund Grosvenor, a woman who died before the age of 40; or Algernon Henry Grosvenor, an Army lieutenant and younger son of peer.Flyte35 (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I'll take your word for it. The original remover didn't have much to say in the way of an edit summary. Yworo (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Keli Goff[edit]

please check my talkpage, thanks Bartholomew Bartolini (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

addressed at Talk:Keli_Goff.Flyte35 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Green Mountain College[edit]


Please refrain from using biased POV to restructure a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vt catamount (talkcontribs) 04:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Please be more specific as to your concerns. I explained each change I made to the article. It's standard practice for information about student activities/student life to come at the end of articles on colleges and universities, just before the references.Flyte35 (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for the accusatory tone, Flyte35. I still don't think that this controversy subsection needs to be moved up, but I'm also not as familiar with the wiki entries of other educational institutions as you or other wiki editors are, so I shouldn't make this call. Lifting the subsection, in my mind, and as a frequent wiki reader, seems to only serve the purpose of giving the 'controversy' more weight than is necessary or due. But that may be a knee-jerk reaction on my part.Vt catamount (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Lists, like clubs or significant alumni, usually go at the end of articles about academic institutions. News items, even relatively frivolous ones, usually appear in the text of the article itself. There's no official guidelines for this, as far as I can tell, but if you look at relatively robust articles you'll find this is generally the case. This doesn't mean anyone is arguing that the controversy over the oxen is super-important; it's just standard structuring. I actually think this whole B&L thing belongs WITHIN the green campus section (because this is all about sustainability and the environment) but I'm not going to worry about any of that until we've sorted out the current debate about text. Thanks for getting back to me about this, btw.Flyte35 (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

B&L slaughter discussion[edit]

Hi Flyte35! It looks like the content dispute will continue. Will you be joining the next stage with us? May I ask where you stand on my latest proposal? Regards. PE2011 (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I will probably not be continuing with this project. I don't know what your latest proposal is--there were many edits proposed and the discussion is now closed so I can't go to the dispute page and search for it--so I can't speak to how I feel about it.Flyte35 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
My latest proposal: “The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide who signed a petition stating that the two oxen, after working for 10 years, deserve to retire in a sanctuary.”PE2011 (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Whatever you think of it, I would encourage you to participate in the next stage with us. Please :) PE2011 (talk) 22:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think those additions you propose are necessary to the article, and I don't think they improve it, but I can live with them.Flyte35 (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Would you mind voicing your opinion in the GMC's talk page? PE2011 (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
No, I've made all the points I needed to make on the GMC talk page. I'm done with this discussion. I wish you good luck if you decide to continue. Flyte35 (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Howard University[edit]

I saw that you undid a revision that I made on the Howard University page listing Cheick Modibo Diarra as an alumni because there was no citation. I added a citation; however, I'm curious why you would single that one out when none of the other dozen plus alumni have citations. Mvblair (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Because your revision was made recently and it's easy to correct the error.Flyte35 (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Henry VII[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Henry VII of England. 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. Ross'coolguyCVU 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Not yet. An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. I have made one revert.Flyte35 (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Except you did manually revert his edit once before that, which has the same effect. It is always better to discuss disputes on the talk page of the article rather than undoing each other's edits. Thanks! RosscoolguyCVU 02:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolution: Declined to discuss on talk page. Edit retained.Flyte35 (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Cuomo[edit]

I saw you reverted my edit for being uncited and I am wondering if this would be an acceptable citation for a magazine print article. Time Magazine, November 19th, 2012 Issue; "The White House - Obama's Path to Victory", pages 16-17

Does that look good? Whitestorm17 (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If that Time article backs up the information in the graf you want to include yes, it is fine as a source. You should see the citation used for other journalism articles in the Andrew Cuomo article and replicate that. In general it's best to provide a link to the source, information about the author of the piece, and when you accessed it, if available.Flyte35 (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Odd changes to private for profit colleges[edit]

Why are you deleting the label of so many private, for profit colleges. Of course a public institution cannot be a for private, that's why they're marked as PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT. Do you understand the difference between PRIVATE and PUBLIC? Public means an institution owned by a governmental entity, such as a school district or state. Private denotes private sector ownership. it can be an individual, a partnership, a corporation, a Co-op, or even a not for profit entity. Not sure what the agenda you're pursuing here is. StevenBradford (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

As I explained, it's misleading and redundant. A for-profit college is not a type of private college, it's a type of company. It's also troublesome because for-profit colleges, as companies, are sometimes "private" companies and sometimes "publicly traded." When the entry says it's a "privately owned for-profit college" or a "publicly traded for-profit college" I'd leave it alone, because that's accurate and makes the nature of the company clear to the reader. But the basic reason is that "public" and "private" mean different things when when we're discussing academic institutions and corporations. Like, should the link go to private company or private college? It seems unnecessary to me to specify that the company is private, especially since it appeared in many cases that the for-profit colleges were classified in the wikipedia entires as "private" when they were actually publicly traded companies. In the specific entry we have both edited, Collins College, for instance, it's misleading to call it "private, for-profit" since the institution is owned by Career Education Corporation, which is a publicly traded company. You see what I mean? Flyte35 (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

So your'e saying it's redundant. There are taxonomic reasons for having finer grain detail, but if it's that important to you. okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenBradford (talkcontribs) 14:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to add in my opinion. I would agree with StevenBradford, that it is not redundant for students who are not aware that there are no public for-profit colleges. I would disagree with you that it causes confusion with the idea that some colleges are "publicly" traded, as in fact, it is not the school that is publicly traded, but the corporation owning the schools. Additionally, in the education sector, it is VERY common to refer to for-profit colleges as "private for-profit." For example, the government managed website "College Navigator" refers to for-profit colleges as "private, non-profit" to avoid confusion by students. I understand your point of view, but I do think that the changes you made are not in-line with overall sentiment in the education community. EtanaLF (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's just about clarifying this for the average reader and avoiding jargon and redundancy. We reached agreement, so I think we're good now.Flyte35 (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry - Must have missed it. But what was the agreement? And who did you make it with? Every page you edited seems to have been untouched, except for Capella, which I edited and you quickly reverted. I believe that they way you edited these articles made it less clear and did not clarify anything...I think it is more clear to add "private" - as it is that, a private college (whether or not it is publicly traded). I understand your point of view, but still believe that colleges should be classified as "private for-profit" to best clarify what the school is. EtanaLF (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The only dispute was with StevenBradford, who said "okay" to my edit after I explained it.Flyte35 (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay...well, I guess I am bringing it up again... I don't think it is confusing to say a college about is "private" even if it is "publicly traded." You are taking jargon from the business sector and applying it to education without thinking about why several college pages already were marked as "private, for-profit." Even if a college is owned by a publicly traded corporation, the college is still considered a private college. I think it would make much more sense to move back to private, for-profit and link "private" out to private colleges, which states that the definition of a private college is "Private universities are universities not operated by governments, although many receive tax breaks, public student loans, and grants. Depending on their location, private universities may be subject to government regulation. This is in contrast to public universities and national universities. Some universities are non-profit and some are for-profit means as business organization." This should clarify to any person that the definition is not referring to whether the school is publicly traded, and is actually referring to whether the college is funded by the government.EtanaLF (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
My arguments are the same. Since all for-profit colleges are, definitionally, not state-run, there's no need to specify that a for-profit college is private. That would be like classifying a community college as "public." There's simply no need. Flyte35 (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Resolution: Edits retained.Flyte35 (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

College admissions in the United States[edit]

I disagree with your revert. Many applicants to US colleges can not afford the high priced tuition to elite schools such as Cornell, and actively seek realistic alternatives to keep them out of debt. Readers of such a choice, contemplating high college costs, would very much like to know about the Canadian alternative.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Then discuss it, don't start an edit war. ElKevbo (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but Wikipeida is not user guide or "how-to" for readers. The article about college admissions in the United States should contain only factual information about college admissions in the United States. If you believe Americans going to Canada to save on tuition is important to discuss (and you have evidence that it's a real trend), there are plenty of other articles that might be appropriate. College tuition in the United States, Higher education in Canada, or college tuition are some options.Flyte35 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

ElKevbo, how come you didn't give Flyte here the same kind of warning that I got? Seems like you're playing favorites here. About the addition: Canadian alternative is directly relevant -- 10,000 Americans attend Canadian colleges and the numbers are growing; reason; sky-high US tuitions; it is directly relevant to parents and students applying to US colleges who have to cope with high tuition and the possibility of large student debt afterwards. NBC News was the source here; they were writing to an American audience about college admissions. Plus they made the point that college admissions to Canadian schools is easier, faster. This has nothing to do with a "how-to guide" but is directly relevant to the subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC) One more thing: the article title is College admissions in the United States, that is, admissions to colleges that happen to take place in the US; it does not say where the colleges are physically located, so US high school seniors, applying to colleges, may very well apply to Canadian ones.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't get the same warning because reverting an edit once is not edit warring. It's repeated reverts that are troublesome (see edit war). Re: the substance of your argument, I undersand what you're saying, and the decisions Americans might be making because of high tuition are interesting, but American students attending college in Canada is simply NOT a feature of college admissions in the United States. As the first line of the article states, "college admissions in the United States refers to the process of applying for entrance to institutions of higher education for undergraduate study at one of the nation's 2,675 four-year nonprofit schools." So yes, it is about where the colleges are physically located: in the United States of America. It seems like the paragraph you're trying to add would be very appropriate in an article about college tuition.Flyte35 (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
If it is "repeated reverts" which are troublesome, then I only reverted once so I do not feel the stern warning I got on my page from ElKevbo was warranted. And regardless of what the first line reads in the article, I believe the Canadian option is something American high schoolers should consider, and who do consider, in increasing numbers -- 10,000 are in Canadian colleges. That is, suppose you are a US high school student applying to colleges, or their parent, with limited financial means, then wouldn't you want to at least read a line or two about an inexpensive alternative? And this is not a "how-to"; rather, it is something that happens. It merits inclusion. Plus, there are other things which I think are left out of the article. As you should know, there are no length restrictions on Wikipedia articles other than practical guidelines, provided the content is notable and meets the necessary criteria; as computers become faster, as Internet speeds pick up, length will be less and less of an issue.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
But the problem is that the paragraph you're trying to include is not about college admissions in the United States. I see what you feel compelled to say and what the trend you're discussing is important, but if Americans do indeed feel compelled to attend Canadian universities in increasing numbers, that 's a function of tuition (about which there several articles where it might be appropriate to include your paragraph) , not the process of applying for entrance to institutions of higher education in the United States.Flyte35 (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Tell you what. How about including one line -- you choose the wording -- just mentioning that increasingly college-bound seniors are considering admissions to Canadian colleges as a way to lessen costs. Would that be acceptable?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Another thing. I remember somebody saying that the article was increasingly being used as an information source by foreigners applying to US colleges, and the article lacked sufficient information about this. So maybe if it gets expanded somewhat, we should consider spinning off subarticles to keep the main one workable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to compromise (really, I do) but the article is about admissions to American colleges, so I don't think there's any reason to include anything about applications to colleges in other countries. Flyte35 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Well let's agree to disagree. I feel it's important. If you were a parent with two college-bound students, wanting to learn about "college admissions in the united states", confronted with high priced private schools, crowded state schools, you would like to consider the possibility of a realistic alternative; a line or two mentioning the Canadian alternative seems entirely appropriate.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
A wikipedia article is not, as I explained above, a user guide for "a parent with two college-bound students." The question is not about whether or not students going to college in Canada to save on tuition is an important issue. The question is whether the issue that interests you is relevant to an article about the admissions process to American colleges. And it isn't, because it's just not about college admissions in America. Why can't you just put this in an article about tuition, which is really what the Canadian alternative is about?Flyte35 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I know the rules; I've contributed here many years; and I think this issue is highly relevant. Surely you realize that this article is read by all kinds of people with all kinds of purposes; these may not be apparent to you, since there are no real ways for them to comment on the article, to say what it is missing, or how it could be improved. So, as contributors, we have to guess at who these readers are, and to try to accommodate their needs for information. And my sense is these readers include high schoolers (primarily seniors), foreign students seeking admission to US colleges, guidance counselors, college admissions officials plus other administrators, parents of applicants, reporters (to figure out what has already been said, mostly, as well as a brief recap of the issue), academics perhaps studying admissions as a subject, and others. If I am right, how well does the article meet the needs of these diverse groups? It's not just you reading it; others matter. My suggestion is to put yourself in their shoes, and ask what you'd want to know, if you were them, and then you will have a better sense of how to improve this article. It's not about "how-to"; it is information on this whole subject. As a parent of applicants, in my view, it is highly important to learn about the Canadian option for the reasons I mentioned above. Before I worked on this article, maybe a year ago, it had meager information and had perhaps 100 pageviews a day; now I've got it in the range of 300+/day, and it is a much better information source, but it can be improved further.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
There's no need to worry about theoretical needs of all of these potential readers. If other people want to contribute and make suggestions they are free to do so. What would benefit the article (both for me and for "high schoolers (primarily seniors), foreign students seeking admission to US colleges, guidance counselors, college admissions officials plus other administrators, parents of applicants, reporters, academics perhaps studying admissions as a subject, and others") would be to keep it concise and readable and limit it to information relevant to the admissions process to American colleges. Your graph about going to Canada to save money on tuition, while potentially interesting somewhere, is extraneous to that, and that's why it shouldn't be there. Flyte35 (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree about keeping it concise, but one line -- one line -- mentioning an alternative to the high costs of US education, would be highly useful for parents as well as high schoolers. Tell you what -- let's ask ElKevbo his view; whatever he or she decides, I'll go with, fair enough?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Plus I'm copying this conversation to the talk page of CA in the US.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Resolution: Discussed at Talk:College admissions in the United States. Information about American students attending Canadian universities removed from article.Flyte35 (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

University of Phoenix[edit]

I think the edits to University of Phoenix, which you reverted, were actually helpful. In the article's current state, the sentence "In 2010 Apollo Group, University of Phoenix parent company, founded the Apollo Research Institute." doesn't have its context anymore. It no longer makes any sense under the paragraph's thesis sentence about "abbreviated courses and the use of learning teams".

My edits were in no way speculation, but rather copy-edits to tie the sentences together to fix this problem. --Sbluen (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well you could say something like "in the aftermath" or quote Phoenix as to its reason for creating the Apollo institute, but it seems misleading to say "to try to overcome these issues," because the reason for the creation of University of Phoenix National Research Center is not really a verifiable fact. It would be equally speculative, for instance, if an editor had changed the line to read "to try to deflect criticism." You see what I mean? Flyte35 (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with using the words "in the aftermath" because that doesn't tie the sentence to the thesis well enough. Also, there is nothing in the source to quote regarding the the quality of education in the past. I see what you mean, but I think the speculation is there regardless, simply because of the paragraph structure.
I'll leave in a different version of my edit so that a discussion on the article's talk page, once and if we start one, can be more focused on the problem you are talking about. You can revert it if you want. --Sbluen (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
All you appear to have done is change "to further improve circumstances" to "also with the intention of improving circumstances" which is not an improvement. There's simply no need to speculate as to motivation. You say that your concern is that "'in the aftermath' doesn't tie the sentence to the thesis well enough." What is the thesis? All we can safety say is that there was criticism and then Phoenix created a research institute.Flyte35 (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Flyte? Who are you and what's your reason for making these edits? I am a community college educator and strategic corporate researcher and have been following higher education for several years. I do not work for any company or union and I am against short-selling stock. I am interested in helping the public understand what's happening in higher education, and how military veterans, single mothers, people of color, people who are disabled, immigrants, and the underemployed are targeted for education that's either too expensive or limited in value. My focus has been on for-private colleges because they serve as an extreme case of the neoliberal "business model." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In my latest edits I fixed the sourcing. I did that because it improves the quality of the article. Are you referring to some other change? Flyte35 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Resolution: Edits retained (more or less). Now just has date of the creation of the institution.Flyte35 (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Neumont University[edit]

We demand that you update our Wiki entry to say "Private University" - our true classification - and stop labeling us a for-profit career college. We will not hesitate to subpoena all of your true identities again in federal court. We've already been assisted in bringing down the Controversy section of our page due to our cyber-stalkers spreading lies about us. Just because our investors are Mormon does not mean we are a Mormon school. And just because one of our directors was investigated for fraud and bribery years ago does not mean our school deserves a Controversy section on Wikipedia. We will continue to fight anyone who attacks our school on the internet. You have been warned.

Which entry does this refer to?Flyte35 (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The user has been blocked for that message. It was in relation to Neumont University. LFaraone 18:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Resolution: User apparently blocked. No, um, subpoenaing of any true identities in federal court, thrilling as that would have been.Flyte35 (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

College Tuition in the United States[edit]

In the edit just prior to this one, where I fix a formatting typo, you reverted my edit in this same section, and gave a pretty good reason - just not enough space in edit summary for me to get the full gist of what you were trying to say.

As you can see, in I made the following addition:

"This factor becomes more pronounced in modern times, since more students nowadays are going to college, which means that there are less state and federal grant funds available per student."

with the following edit summary:

"(→‎Additional factors: revert good-faith mistake edit of 01:34, 30 April 2013 : This claim seems to be supported/implied by the reference; however, even if not, the fact more students are in college is common knowledge = needs no documentation/citation)"

You RE-reverted (reverted my revert) with this summary:

"(Undid revision 561595261 by (talk) more students common knowledge, but that increasing tuition discounting (or reducing state funds) not common knowledge/in reference)"

Apparently, you had removed this in a prior edit before I got there in the Revision as of 01:34, 30 April 2013 (edit) (undo) Flyte35 (talk | contribs) (→‎Additional factors: that factor is also addressed in Kantrowitz) Next edit →

(This is getting confusing, but in summary -- apparently, you removed something in the article, I replaced/restored it, and you removed it again.) No offense meant, but I am confused by both of your edit summaries:

  • First Question: What did you mean in your first edit (Apr 30, 2013 @ 1:34am) that "that factor is also addressed in Kantrowitz?" (If it were indeed discussed, then this would mean that the previous editor could cite Kantrowitz as the source, and, indeed, Kantro is a national expert here.)

Secondly, your edit summary, while good, still left me confused -where you said: "(Undid revision 561595261 by (talk) more students common knowledge, but that increasing tuition discounting (or reducing state funds) not common knowledge/in reference)."

  • 2nd Question: If, indeed, you agree that it's common knowledge that more students are in college now-days, then what is wrong with making the factual statement that there would, necessarily, be less financial aid per student, all other factors being equal? (And, even if factors weren't equal, this still would have an effect, and you don't need to cite a source to prove a commonly known fact that with more hungry people, there are less apples and oranges -e.g., money -to go around per person?)

(PS: This higher ed struggle is an important issue, as many students are hurting, and we need to work together here to present the facts, so that any solution is more-easily forthcoming.)

  • 3rd and LASTLY, since you apparently don't disagree with my statements as fact, what do you propose as the appropriate solution here? Thank you, in advance, for your clarification. (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
My point is that it is accurate to say that one of the "Other factors that have been implicated in increased tuition" include "The practice of 'tuition discounting,' in which a college awards financial aid from its own funds. This assistance to low-income students means that 'paying' students have to 'make up' for the difference: increased tuition." It doesn't, however, make sense to say that "This factor becomes more pronounced in modern times, since more students nowadays are going to college, which means that there are less state and federal grant funds available per student." The reference does not indicate that the fact that more students are going to college now makes tuition discounting "more pronounced." I think the sentence is fine as it is now.Flyte35 (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
So, we agree that the source verifies the definition of tuition discounting as to include limited 'low assistance' funds. And, we also both agree that more students attend colleges now-days. That's like saying we both agree that the scientists have a limited amount of peanuts for their squirrels -and that we also agree the squirrel population is booming/increasing. So, why is it wrong to logically conclude that the famine amongst squirrels will be more pronounced? Maybe I should ask ElKevbo and other editors who have a background in editing this series to weigh in and offer community consensus? Unless you can logically argue that the squirrels' famine is not more pronounced, you have no basis to reject my edit. (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
No, that's a violation of WP:NOR. You don't have a source arguing that, so you can't say that's the case. It also doesn't follow necessarily. Colleges could enroll more full-paying students.Flyte35 (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
You might be right that it doesn't necessarily follow, but let me see if you can help me 'get' this piece of logic, OK?
(Site note: In case you didn't notice, I did ask a few other editors to come to your 'talk' page and weigh in --not to gang up on you (in fact, they could have ganged up on me), but rather to offer an objective 3rd party "doctor's 2nd opinion" --see the "contributions" of that IP address above --apparently, they chose not to. I see you made additional edits, and am interested as to what they were, and also may look for said additional citations to back my prior claim.)
Main Question: Do you mean to say that it's possible that, yes, more students attend college, and that -all other things being equal -the financial aid might be less per student (thus making it more pronounced) --BUT that all things may NOT be equal?
For example, if the amount of financial aid increased -or (as you say) there are more "paying" students, which helps the college be able to help more "poor" students? Is this what you mean? (If so, it seems plausible that what i am alleging is not necessarily proved like you say, meaning I would have to find a source. I think I have heard Kantrowitz actually make this claim, but I don't have a ready source at this time.)05:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Any of the things you mention are POSSIBLE, but the principle of WP:NOR (please read this if you haven't had time to yet) is that you have to have sourcing for each statement. Even if your reasoning were airtight, this isn't the place to draw conclusions based on evidence you've found.Flyte35 (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I suspected as much, but was slow to respond/reply to you as I just now saw your reply here. In any event, your recent corrections to my edit seem good, and so our prior disagreement is anti-climatic moot. Thanks for your assistance here. (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


The section in question now states as follows:

The practice of 'tuition discounting,' in which a college awards financial aid from its own funds. This assistance to low-income students means that 'paying' students have to 'make up' for the difference: increased tuition.[10] According to Inside Higher Ed, a new report from the National Association of College and University Business Officers has been done to shed additional light on the practice of tuition discounting. The report notes that "while the total amount spent on institutional aid for freshmen rose, the average amount that institutions spent per student actually dropped slightly," and gives, as one possible reason for this drop that "that colleges and universities had to lower the amount they gave to each student to help cover a larger number of students."[28]

[10] ^ a b c d e Kantrowitz, Mark (2002). "Research Report: Causes of faster-than-inflation increases in college tuition". FinAid.

[28] ^ Kiley, Kevin (2011). "Discounting the Bottom Line". National Association of College and University Business Officers. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 28 June 2013.

Did I do well?

The above statement doesn't really indicate that "tuition discounting" is increasing because colleges are enrolling more students in total; it suggests that colleges are spreading the aid around to cover more students in the class, likely because more students appear to qualify for financial aid than in prior years. But it's certainly appropriate to quote from the Inside Higher Ed article if you want to highlight something the author said in the piece. Flyte35 (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, thank you for fixing the references in your recent edits to (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for your additional contributions / edits, here: I did a follow-up to see what became of my edit, and I am glad to see that it was accepted in theory, and the corrections you made seem to be good as well. In any event, no offense meant to the rich bankers or higher ed providers (who suck students dry anymore), but as this is a bad level of oppression, I am glad that the "99%" (you, me, and the rest of the Wikipedia community) so to speak, can work together and address these inequities within the constructs of a peaceful framework. (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolution: Edits retained.Flyte35 (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Carole Radziwill[edit]

Re: Is Carole Radziwill a princess?

Please discuss it there and try to get consensus. Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This is kind of embarrassing to have on my talk page.... Oh well. Yes will be addressed here: Talk:Carole_Radziwill. Flyte35 (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. :) I just saw that no talk discussion had been initiated so I'm trying to get the ball rolling. I just thought it fair to notify all involved, regardless. Best wishes, my friend, and thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Resolution: Not a princess. Not called a princess in the article, anyway, because no sourcing found.Flyte35 (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

College tuition in the United States - - redux[edit]

Thank you for your various contributions to Higher Ed articles, Flyte35. But with all due respect, I am puzzled by your recent edit, here.

You removed:

* Lastly, in order to offset the costs of tuition, some colleges help students in job searches and job placement after graduation.

and, you cited "(doesn't address rising tuition)" as the reason.

Respectfully, this does address the rising tuition, even if only to offer a mitigation to the symptom (high college tuition), as opposed to a true cure (lowering it to an affordable level). (In fact, I will admit that job placement alone is almost useless, toothless, and impotent in fixing this -unless one gets a 100 Grand per year job -tuition inflation is that bad; however, strictly-speaking, a job does address the problem.)

So, would you be amenable to reverting your edit? If not, please explain. Thank you. (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No, because helping "students in job searches and job placement after graduation" doesn't address the cost of tuition. The tuition is the same no matter what happens when students graduate. More importantly, however, it's in the recommendations section, so it would need a source that indicates that the thing is one recommendation that someone's putting forward to address rising tuition. Flyte35 (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Was not such a source cited?
"Top 10 Job Placement Colleges: INFORMATION AND TIPS ON INTERNSHIPS AND PAID INTERNSHIP". 2011. (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Thank you for your clarification here. (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
That link just goes to a list of the "top ten job placement colleges." It does not indicate that experts and consumer and students' rights advocates are recommending "helping students in job searches and job placement" as a way to address rising tuition. Flyte35 (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Good point. Technically, you're right about the link, but I am surprised. The existence of a lite implies its recommendation, and that is the only real purpose: To respond to the debt by getting a job & paying off the debt. However, this in small fries, in my opinion, and I am not inclined to argue this: Perhaps, later, I can search for actual recommendations, which would address your concern. (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Update: I made just such an edit here; I hope it is acceptable. (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
No, because none of those sources indicate that job placement after college, or even getting a job while in college, is a way to "address rising tuition." Sure it might be a way for individuals to PAY tuition, but that was always true, even when college was cheaper. All of the other recommendations in that section are policy recommendations to try to stop college tuition from rising. None of your sources indicate that employment will stop college tuition from rising.Flyte35 (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
You correctly quote the section sub-header: Indeed it is a section for ways to "address rising tuition." However, "addressing" some problem (high tuition in this case) does not necessarily require one to *reduce* it. Within the ordinary meaning of the word, it is plausible to "address" the problem by making its counter-opposite *increase*. (If you don't believe that increasing pay would "address" the problem of high tuition, try telling that to students who have done just that!) There's more than one way to skin a cat. If you wanted to have a header that referred only to pay, it might read: "recommendations to REDUCE rising tuition," but it doesn't; so, you must use what you have to work with. So, I think that getting a job (either whilst in college or post-graduation) would certainly address the problem. (It would also make our "conservative and "neoconservative" enemies shut up, and realize that we have personal responsibility and don't just want a free handout, but that is ancillary; the sub-header's language permits my edit as valid.) (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It's just inappropriate here because all of the other recommendations are policy recommendations and you're bringing in something personal. It would be like saying one way to "address" increasing tuition would be to go to a cheaper college, or apply for more scholarships. It just doesn't make any sense to have this personal stuff in this section. But, again, the major problem is that none of your sources indicate that jobs "address" rising tuition, whereas all of the sourcing for all of the other sourcing for the other recommendations have very clear sourcing about about how the recommendations would lead tuition to rise less quickly. This just doesn't belong here. Flyte35 (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I do agree with you that 'addressing' tuition on our end (the oppressed college student and otherwise unimportant plebeian of 'the state') is certainly more personal than addressing the oppression on their end. (In fact, many articles -both by 'advocates' as well as higher ed 'industry hacks' -advocate going to a cheaper college, applying for more scholarships. I recall reading that on practically EVERY website that also addresses the tuition inflation problem. So, besides getting a job, these, too, might 'address' the tuition inflation problem. Think of it this way: 2 ways to 'address' being low on gas: Get the price down, or spend more. Both are valid.) I notice that you didn't revert my edit. Is this because of an oversight on your part, or, rather, do you have a doubt about your own logic? I think my argument that getting a job -(and, as you say, scholarships, etc.) -'addresses' the tuition inflation problem, even though they certainly don't 'reducing' the tuition inflation problem -is a sound argument, and maybe reason why you hesitated to reverse my edit. If you disagree, why don't we seek other editors to break the tie and come to a consensus ? Otherwise, I would think my edit should stand -and maybe even add in your 2 novel suggestions as ways to 'address' this oppression. (talk) 08:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
AGAIN: none of your sources indicate that jobs "address" rising tuition, whereas all of the sourcing for all of the other sourcing for the other recommendations have very clear sourcing about about how the recommendations would lead tuition to rise less quickly. If you still think this "get a job" thing is important to include in the college tuition article, I think it would be more productive for you to have this over here, in the article's talk page, I think I've done all I can do on my talk page.Flyte35 (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree that 'talk' about this article should be on its talk page: Anyone arriving here based on my recent edit, please discuss this edit on the article's talk page. (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Resolution: No consensus reached. Information about getting a job remains in the article.Flyte35 (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Timeline of labor issues and events may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolution: Fixed.Flyte35 (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Name of Ukraine deletion[edit]

Hi, Flyte35. I'm wondering why you chose to delete the particular 'uncited' entry in an article absolutely rife with POV entries, lack of citations and, if you check the talk page, has been blighted by nationalistic 'contributions' for years. I'm about to put a multiple issue tag on the article and try to address serious issues surrounding the content. In the meantime, if you're genuinely interested in improving the content, feel free to join in on the talk page under the relevant section.

Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Because that was the section of the article tagged a POV problem. Sure there's plenty of other stuff to fix, but I don't see why that's a reason to revert the edit.Flyte35 (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Did you actually understand what the POV issue was about? I put it there in order to alert other ongoing contributors that I'm about to make big changes. What processes did you use to deduct what the POV issue was and establish that the best method of dealing with it was to delete it? It wasn't directed at the one sentence but at the entire paragraph. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
P.S. The reason I reverted it was because it is the only sentence in the section worthy of being expanded and cited. The rest of the article was recently overwritten (blanked) and replaced with a cut 'n paste translation from the RU Wikipedia. The exhaustive reference list has been made redundant (although it looks impressive) and entirely new sources in Russian (without any attempts at translating relevant material) have supplanted them. The 'Etymology' section has now become a joke as the 'History' section above it actually deals with the etymology therefore, by the time the reader gets to the 'Etymology' their views have already been coloured by blatantly biased sources and a fallacious appeal to authority. If you are able to read sources in Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian or Polish, or are sufficiently well-acquainted with Old East Slavic, your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of those languages. I was just trying to fix that one tagged line. I didn't know you were about to make big changes. Do as you wish. I certainly don't think maintaining my one edit is essential.Flyte35 (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, Flyte35. Pity you can't assist with Belarus & Polish (my knowledge of them are adequate but nowhere near to being on par with the others). Thanks for your interest, anyway. It's good to know there are people trying to stay on top of Wikipedia messes. Unfortunately, as one of 'those' topics that's prone to spontaneously combustion, I have to tread carefully before restructuring in order to present all arguments in a balanced manner. Apologies for jumping on you. I was caught up it trying to mediate between nationalistic interest groups on a few other articles revolving around Eastern European issues/politics and was feeling decidedly jittery. Wish me luck on not triggering off significant edit wars! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


At you linked to a chapter in a dissertation about the Newars of Nepal. I would love to know the name of the author. I can get to individual chapters of this, but not to an introduction, table of contents or title page. Frustrating! LADave (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Please provide the link to the wiki page. I don't remember this but I'll try to help.Flyte35 (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Henry VII edit[edit]

Wouldn't it be more correct to simply state what Bertram Fields and Sir Clements Markham did professionally? Fields is a lawyer and Markham was a geographer. This would remove any question of POV in adding "amatuer historians". Your thoughts?

However, it would be correct to add "amatuer historian" to Alison Weir. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

All three of those people are amateur historians. It would be correct to say that Fields is a lawyer and Markham was a geographer, yes, but it's not relevant. Their professions didn't have anything to do with their conclusions or the quality of their scholarship. They reached their conclusions by doing extensive research, much in the manner of professional historians. NPOV policy means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views." POV isn't a problem here because "amateur historian" isn't pejorative or biased; they are amateur historians.Flyte35 (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Well I wasn't trying to say "amatuer historians" was POV, I just thought that stating what they actually did professionally would indicate to the reader that these individuals are not historians. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū[edit]

The article states that: "Other instructors who are teaching Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū internationally are:

                        Yukihiro Sugino, 9th Dan, son of the late Yoshio Sugino (杉野 嘉男 Sugino Yoshio, 12 December 
                         1904–1998)at Yuishinkan Sugino Dojo (Kawasaki, Japan)."

Now it is a fact that Yoshio was indeed licensed by an earlier headmaster to teach Katori Shinto-Ryu. He also indeed did his keppan and was therefore an official student. His son , Yukihiro Sugino never did his keppan in the head dojo in narita and has never received a teaching license. He is therefore not an official student. This isn't documented because there is no documentation about who didn't do keppan. My question is: What is your take on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D21400 (talkcontribs) 10:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's core sourcing policy "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." Material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Verifiability is a minimum requirement for the inclusion of material. Technically a whole lot of this article isn't sourced, which is also a problem, but with regard to this specific question about keppan, we can't add information without sourcing. Flyte35 (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

College tuition in the United States[edit]

Please come over to: to discuss the recent edit war, as it is regarding the same type of edit as was done just now. (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I am consolidating discussion of 2 different Wikipedia pages to the talk page of one of them (for simplicity), simply because they involve the same issue; there was an edit was between myself and 1 editor over on the College Tuition in the United States page, and then over on the Higher Ed bubble page, myself and 2 other editors edit-warred. As you are 1 of the 3 editors, I'm acting in good faith and notifying you of the consolidated discussion -even though it will drastically increase the odds that the 3 of you can 'gang up' on me. Note: I did not have to notify you of the other edit war, but I did -even knowing I may get ganged up on by 3 registered editors. Please know that when you remove a truthful, on-topic edit that is *properly sourced*, then it pushes other editors like myself to not want to become registered. So, your actions here are counterproductive, but I will assume good faith: the link in question is right above. (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Resolution: My edits retained.Flyte35 (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

David Carlucci[edit]

Okay, let's talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelj6763 (talkcontribs) 14:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please use Talk:David_Carlucci. There are discussions started there.Flyte35 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Flyte35 moved the discussion to the talk page.

Resolution: Discussed in talk. Most of my proposed edits retained. Flyte35 (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Michael Reagan[edit]

Discussion moved to Talk:Michael_Reagan#Original_research Flyte35 (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

trying to cover a convicted criminal and his relationship with michael reagan. How much are you getting paid to manage his reputation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

What, specially, do you want to change? Flyte35 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Princess Gabriella, Countess of Carladès[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war at the Princess Gabriella, Countess of Carladès page. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Actually no, I've revered twice. You're reverted three times. Anonymous editor, the wiki rule for Biographies of living persons states that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That's what I was doing. But I did explain my reasoning in the comments section. You should participate there, and stop adding unsourced material. Flyte35 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It is sourced. The Monagesque laws have been posted and, regardless of your explanations, you still cannot revert more than three times. That rule is also sourced and easy for to read up on. (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Princess Gabriella, Countess of Carladès#Titles and styles (new section). Flyte35 (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


Absolute final warning on the Princess Gabriella page. You are now in violation of the 3RR rule AND ignoring consensus. (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I haven't revered anything on that page since the last time you contacted me. Flyte35 (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, you are correct. I had mistaken a different edit for a revert. (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. See WP:NOT3RR. "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons" is not counted as revert for the purposes of 3RR. Surtsicna (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

[Moved to user page.]

College tuition in the United States[edit]

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

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! (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.. (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. (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


A request was made here, and the request was granted here in a vandalism case that involves you; fair notice is given. (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!" (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? (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. (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). (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.) (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. (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. (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. (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). (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

19th century hoop skirt = crinoline[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)

A barnstar for you![edit]

[Moved to user page]