User talk:GO WHARTON/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, GO WHARTON, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please

sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dr Debug (Talk) 19:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and especially for that four tildes idea. Nice. GO WHARTON 20:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where to respond[edit]

The problem with the software is that you only get the "You have a new message" when somebody responds on your own page, however that always gives fragmented message where you can only see one part. Most people like to continue the message where it was started (I do), however with new users, you have to check it again. There is a little trick, on the bottom of screen you can select "Watch this page". If you have selected that, it'll appear on your watchlist and that way you can check what is going on. It is also very good for articles which you have started and want to keep an eye out for. In this case I've responded on both ;) Dr Debug (Talk) 20:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brown/Ivy League Business School[edit]

Why not add text to Brown University to the effect that Brown has a principle against business schools? You would be able to link to Ivy League Business Schools inline; no one would disagree with that. On the other hand, please do not be bold again; we are currently in the "discuss" phase of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --Mgreenbe 11:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems JDoorjam doesn't much care for the link. He has a point: it makes more sense to link the present prose to business school itself. I'm certain that you could get the link to stay; for example:

Brown's 1764 charter ... yadayadayada ... this has long been interpreted by the Corporation as disallowing either a business school or a law school ... as of 2006, Brown is one of the two Ivy League Universities without a business school.

A few good citations will make the whole paragraph a keeper. On a positive note, you have entered the might fray of Brunonia. Good luck (or "oy", depending) — and since I forgot to say it earlier, welcome! --Mgreenbe 18:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard about the Australian plant; pretty flowers, but not much fray. Then again, how grumpy does Robert Brown look? There's not too much Martha Stewart at Brown; we tend to shy away from corrupt investors. Judging by his talk page, JDoorjam seems reasonable — just a bit of an NPOV hawk. I'm sure he can be convinced. --Mgreenbe 18:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up[edit]

Please read WP:MoS to get an idea about the right way to capitalise article titles. --Gurubrahma 18:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm blocking both you and MBAguy...[edit]

...for twenty-four hours for violation of the three-revert rule, WP:3RR. Please try to cool down. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be as even-handed as possible, I've reverted GO WHARTON's last edits to Harvard Business School, Wharton School, and Yale School of Management, but not to [[[S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management]], Tuck School of Business, Columbia Business School. This choice was made at random and does not reflect any opinion on my part that... well, I honestly don't even remember who is on which side or which schools are in which state... that some of these schools are any more deserving of being called Ivy League business schools than any other, or, well, whatever.

Please try to consider this as a one-day Wikivacation, and come back with with constructive ideas on how you and MBAguy can reach some kind of detente. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC[edit]

MBAguy should have informed you himself, but in his absence: You should know that an RFC has been filed about your behavior. Please take this opportunity to respond civilly atWikipedia:Requests for comment/GO WHARTON. Now is the time to demonstrate that you're willing to resolve this dispute without hostility. Rhobite 18:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhobite, I blocked MBAguy and GO WHARTON; the block will expire in about ten hours. So GO WHARTON is currently not able to respond. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back...[edit]

...Now that the blocks I've placed on you and MBAguy have expired, I hope you'll contribute constructively. It seems to me you've gotten quite a lot of what you appear to want. The article on Ivy League business schools is here to stay. I don't think you'll find that a campaign to insert links to this article in as many WIkipedia articles as possible will be either successful or rewarding. And I definitely would avoid editing other peoples' comments in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GO WHARTON. If in fact the dispute has been resolved, you and MBAguy should add comments saying what compromise you've arrived at. What I'd really like to see somewhere is a history of business schools in general—our article on Business schools is very sketchy—and a comparison of their curricula and teaching philosophies. I have the impression that business schools are much more unique, and differ much more from each other, than most graduate schools; that is, there's general agreement on what physics is and what a physics curriculum should be, but much less agreement on what a business curriculum should be. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove content from Talk pages...[edit]

...such as Talk:Tuck School of Business. They're part of the record of the decisions that went into article content and normally should not be removed without consensus. Add a short response if you like, but don't remove content. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but is MBAguy's parting gift of 10-20 witch-hunting messages a real "record of the decisions that went into article content" or are they only a trail of his witch-hunting expedition? MBAguy's messages which include speculations about the background of wikipedia users and their motives shouldn't be allowed on wikipedia, in my view. Unlike him, though, I'm willing to discuss this issue with you and other admins. Would you or another admin please explain why MBAguy's many messages which include his speculations about wikipedia users should be allowed to stay on wikipedia? GO WHARTON 15:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

April 2006[edit]

Please do not remove content from your talk page. Blanking any page can be considered a form of vandalism. You may wish to consider archiving old discussions; take a look at the move page if you would like to learn more about moving and renaming articles. -Isopropyl 22:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your debate with MBAguy[edit]

I don't care about the debate, actually, except that I became somewhat involved at the beginning. Since one of the points you're making is that you want to unilaterally remove MBAguy's comments about you being a sockpuppet, I would appreciate it if you voluntarily removed similar comments which you made about me on the Talk:Ivy League business schools page. Consider this your opportunity to demonstrate good faith. Gekko 00:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gekko, you first reverted users' edits on that article without discussion or consensus, and you instigated argument. You also refused a user's request in the talk pages to discuss content changes, and continued reverting without discussion. As the admins have suggested, it's over and everyone should let it go and move on. Consider this your chance to demonstrate mature growth and good faith. GO WHARTON 20:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lesson from MBAguy's Combative Behavior[edit]

Next time someone as arrogant and combative as MBAguy begins to seriously misbehave, I'll look into the RfC process, as admins have suggested. GO WHARTON 20:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]