User talk:BX9438Q

Numbering of U.S. presidents

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See also List of Presidents of the United States. Coemgenus 21:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image problems

Image tagging for Image:Duvalier-7.jpg

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)[reply]

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

License tagging for Image:BaptistChurch.jpg

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)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Mama_Doc.jpg

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)[reply]

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

Image copyright problem with Image:Duvalier-7.jpg

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)[reply]

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

Linda Darling-Hammond

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 bmckenna@stanford.edu. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbaramckenna (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only warning

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)[reply]

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

Tom Bettag

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)[reply]

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

CJS edits

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)[reply]

Notables

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

House of Iturbide

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Times online ref

Sorry for that! I must have overlooked the 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)[reply]

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

Mexican presidents

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Imperial houses of Mexico

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. --187.146.57.141 (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should use this tag Template:Citation needed.--187.146.57.141 (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --187.146.57.141 (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dennis Kucinich

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)[reply]

Nope. I was wrong. British citizen is the correct term in this case.Flyte35 (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian alphabet

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maximilian I of Mexico

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tank

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

NUS School of Computing and dates

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, that was quick! WP:DATED and Wikipedia:As_of explain it fairly well. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

License tagging for File:MonthlyJulAug11.jpg

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)[reply]

Correct tag is something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GFDL-user. Not really sure how to put this in correctly, however.Flyte35 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your efforts at Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs/Participants and progress. Cloudbound (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

François Blanc

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)[reply]

Red links

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keli Goff

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

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

Green Mountain College

Structure

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

B&L slaughter discussion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Would you mind voicing your opinion in the GMC's talk page? PE2011 (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cheick Modibo Diarra at Howard

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)[reply]

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

Henry VII

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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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'coolguy^CVU 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

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)[reply]

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! Rosscoolguy^CVU 02:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

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

Sources? Andrew Cuomo

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Odd changes to private for profit colleges

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The only dispute was with StevenBradford, who said "okay" to my edit after I explained it.Flyte35 (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Resolution: Edits retained.Flyte35 (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

College admissions in the United States

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Plus I'm copying this conversation to the talk page of CA in the US.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

About the grammar edits to University of Phoenix

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I fully agree with Berstabit and NU DOE and User:Nemont, thank you to ElKevbo for finally deleting the Controversy section from the page, our prestigious university doesn't deserve these attacks on our reputation. President Obama and Steve Forbes have both declared Neumont is the best computer science program in the United States. We are not a sham. Lymani (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]