User talk:Rangoon11/Archive 3

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation

Up to your old tricks again I'd say. It appears that you are still engaged in perpetuating non-existant and incorrect statistical data that is not supported by Columbia University as evidenced by their own webpage. You also perpetuate the erroneous notion that Columbia does not include those affiliates who have been to Columbia for less than one year. Well, the Columbia University records prove otherwise. For instance, Aage, Bohr, Bergstrom and Solow were at Columbia for less than one calender year. And the citations that you used on the table is also erroneous, especially in regards to the staff awards. Indeed, the citations regarding staff awards refer only to Chicago and Cambridge Nobel laureates and doesn't even mention Columbia University which has a much lower number of laureates compared to the former, as a matter of record. Your actions warrant a complaint since you engage in censoring valid information backed up by verifiable cites and authorities, while replacing it with phony numbers that don't exist and are not backed up by any verifiable citations whatsoever.

Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sentence in United Kingdom

Hello, Rangoon11. You have new messages at Alarics's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Alarics (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

List of places known as the capital of the world

Thought I'd provide a comment about your assertion that New York city is the capital of the world. My answer to that assertion - are you kidding? You honestly have to go out some more and visit the world to open your eyes and get some culture. If anything, New York is known for being the crime capital of the world (i.e. bronx). If New York is known for anything else it would have to be either Wall Street or West Point, but that's about it. To start off, New York is not Washington, D.C. nor is it Hollywood, CA or even Silicon Valley, CA. But again, it does have Wall Street. That being said, New York city still cannot compete against London even in finance, since the latter city is incredibly well known for controlling 42 percent of the world equity market. As far as art is concerned, New York does have a modern art museum, but aren't they notorious for daring to showcase a horrible painting of the Virgin Mary composed of human blood and feces? I believe they are. That alone puts New York at the bottom of the list. And New York couldn't hold a candle to London in art as evidenced by the National Gallery, the National Art Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the Tate Modern, the Oxford University Ashmoleum Museum and the Cambridge University Fitzwilliam Museum. Moreover, New York doesn't even come close to the astounding art treasures of the Louvre in Paris, the Hermitage in St. Petersburg or even those found in the Vatican. Honestly, I'm beginning to wonder about you.

Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rangoon, I would like to paste here what I just wrote on the talk page to the above article:

"I'm starting to have regrets resurrecting this article, Rangoon, I respect the reverts you just made to my additions, but I think the problem is that the phrase “capital of ...” is distinctly American and may not be particularly useful to the rest of the world. For example, I'm sure most educated editors would agree that the 'Art Capital of the World' is Paris or Florence but bizarrely American sources say NYC. I know NYC (and London) have a number of important art works but I can easily argue the works in the Louvre and the Uffizi are far more culturally important (containing the most notable Da Vinci and Michaelangelo works)."

Would appreciate if you could contribute to the discussion, thanks. Zarcadia (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the message, I have replied on the Talk page of the article itself. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK nom for K computer

Hi. I've nominated K computer, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. —Bruce1ee^talk 17:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK nom for Mini Hatch (2001–2006)

Hi. I've nominated Mini Hatch (2001–2006), an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Donnie Park (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for K computer

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Eurotrain legacy

Dear Rangoon,
You undid my revision in the article on Eurotrain concerning the section heading legacy. I should like to get some more elucidation why you regard legacy as “more appropriate and standard” than repercussions, the term that I had put there.

The reason is that neither the main author of Eurotrain (history) nor I are native English speakers. Both of us have elaborately discussed the corresponding heading on (at?) the German WP, where Rontombontom expanded the article de:Eurotrain. The discussion started when I modified (among several other language details) the German section heading Vermächtnis (which denotes en:bequest in the first place) to Konsequenzen (german, much like engl. consequences). I sensed the translated term as to sharp, although in the German language as well there are examples of its use in the figurative sense that legacy might transport as section header in en:Eurotrain. However, I was not convinced that my initial modification of the heading was more appropiate. Three months passed until I came up with the term Nachwirkungen (see below english translations) as — for me — appropiate section for the German article. When I made this change in March 2011, there came no objection on behalf of Rontombontom. But by now, I realize that his last contribution to the German WP dates from February 2011.

Checking the Meriam-Webster entry for legacy, I dared to modify the section heading legacy in the same manner as the German version. As the translation of "Nachwirkung" (sing.) the dictionary at leo.org proposed five alternatives to me

• aftermath
• backwash
• consequence
• repercussion
• spillover effect

and — as you don't like repercussions — my proposal would be the first of them: aftermath. Would this get your consent? --KaPe (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your message. Personally I don't like the use of the word 'repercussions' in this context because it implies that the consequences were both unintended and negative. This distinction is not always made clear in the online dictionaries, but my hard copy New Oxford Dictionary of English gives the primary definition of that word as 'an unintended consequence occuring some time after an event or action, especially an unwelcome one'.

'Aftermath' has the same connotations, it is generally used only when the consequences of something are negative, and the New Oxford Dictionary of English primary definition is 'the consequences or after-effects of an event, especially when unpleasant'.

'Legacy' has no implications of bad (or good) consequences and is therefore in my view more neutral and appropriate in this case, and is the word which I have seen used most commonly in WP for such sections of articles. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

King's College Administrative Staff.

Please stop editing the KCL Page or we will seek action to remove it from Wikipedia. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HRH2 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(1) Editors with a conflict of interest are discouraged from editing Wikipedia at all: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and (2) it is not for any editor to instruct another not to edit a particular article.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Your Edit summary

Morning,

I am making a collection of "best ever" on my user page - would you mind if I add the edit summary for this edit to the list ?

Also do you think the new user to the page is a bit of a coincidence ?

Mtking (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Perhaps I was being unfair in that case but one thing that I do find highly offensive is people or companies doing 'charitable' things as a cynical form of advertising or promotion.

Re the account, do you think that Newsrooms and KerioBerry might be one and the same? It's hard to tell from the edit summaries although they are both very new accounts only editing the Olswang article, are doing so in immediate sequence, and it seems more than possible that Newsrooms might have set up the second account whilst blocked. I guess there is only way to be sure but I don't think that an SPI would be unreasonable, although for me the Wikipedia:The duck test isn't passed. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Golden Triangle (UK universities)

Don't bother changing back the correct version of the web page to your laughably incorrect one. If your not going to be factually honest with the site, then get out of it!!!!!! As the founder said at the Berkman Law Center at Harvard University one evening in the first half of 2005, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia of facts that can be corrected by anyone on earth so long as the corrections are verifiable by any reliable source(s) that can be checked. Your version of the web page is not only intentionally incorrect, but also devoid of any factual source to back up what you say. I checked the Columbia University website and it doesn't even come close to what your count of the Nobel Prize winners was. Spread your falsehood on a blog and not on an encyclopedia that requires verifiable facts from reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.132.234 (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hi, I've named you as an involved user at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Golden Triangle (UK universities). - Yk³ talk ~ contrib 01:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Golden Triangle (UK universities)

Give up trying to change back the webpage to its grossly inaccurate version. Because you already persisted on more than 3 consecutive occasions with your erroneous assertions, I have decided to complain about you. And according to your talk record, other editors from universities have already complained about your gross inaccuracies - gross inaccuracies which appear to be intentional I might add. The cites and authorities that I have provided have yet to be refuted by you or anyone else for that matter. Nonetheless, your grounds for changing the said web page back to its original inaccurate version are baseless for several reasons:

1) no length limits (name the rule that proves otherwise); and 2) the tables that you refer to so blindly failed to be confirmed by the University websites themselves (i.e. your tally based on the tables such as total number of alumni, faculty and staff don't match the respective Universities own count based upon their records). If anything, your reference to the table is flawed in that you refer to the number of Nobel Prize winners within individual categories, but when added together exceed the total number of laureates cited by the Universities. You claimed that Columbia University had 97 affiliates, but the said University has a record that already refuted your claim by stating on their own websites that they only have 75% of that number which includes all students, faculty and staff.

Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

DISPUTE RESOLUTION NOTICE

I have entered you into the dispute resolution arena of Wikipedia.

Thetruthnow2012 (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hi Rangoon11, this is just to say that you have been mentioned (in passing) at WP:ANI#User:Thetruthnow2012 and Golden Triangle (UK universities). All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)