User talk:Gustie6

Gustie6, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Gustie6! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Gustavus Adolphus College

Hello Gustie6,

The reason I am contacting you is regarding your edits to Gustavus Adolphus College. Please understand that I am not trying to attack the page, rather make it better. In fact if you look at the page history I am one of the editors who has actually updated Gustavus Adolphus College. The information which I have removed does not meet the criteria for WP:NPOV. By this I mean that old statistics are not relevant. Information regarding specifics for the ranking systems go on ranking pages per WP:MOS. The WP:UNIGUIDE states:

"rankings should be limited to a single section in the article, placed at or near the end and be reported as numeric values with years and verifiable sources; if possible, they should show the range: not "28th," but "28th among the 29" or "28th among the 200". In the lead, do not use rankings to synthesize an image of the institution, whether good or bad. Give one factual statement summarising overall "most recent" rankings obtained in key surveys (for example, "In 2010, institution 'A' has been ranked #3 by The Economist, #5 by The New York Times and #8 by Financial Times."). In the lead, do not give the sub factor rankings -- details like "ranked #x in placements" or "ranked #3 in research" should not be the lead, and only selectively for major factors in the article anywhere. Ratings within a state or other small regions are never appropriate in the lead, and rarely appropriate in any circumstances, except sometimes to indicate ranking of a campus within a system."

I have added information regarding specifics to the talk page on Gustavus Adolphus College. Please do not continue to edit war as you have already reverted my edits four times against the WP:The three-revert rule. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Randomeditor1000

IN RESPONSE: I am trying to also make the page better by providing up to date, factual information. The edits are not puffery and in fact are of a neutral point of view. Past rankings are relevant, as they change every year. Citations are provided to prove that statements edited are not puffery, but clear facts. You keep removing " 'The New York Times has ranked Gustavus Adolphus as the best college or university in Minnesota.. on their third annual College Access Index of Top Colleges" despite the statement being factual and cited.

I have re-edited the section to provide factual information of the college. Please give example of ratings within a state or small region as all ratings mentioned on the page are nationwide and cited. In addition, if possible ranges should be mentioned but once again, if possible. In addition, your edits are not regarding the leads. It seems that you are in an editing war. I will reach a compromise and shift many of the facts cited to other sections of the page if needs be; the statistics are relevant and used in many other wikipedia pages which I can provide ample examples per request . Gustie6 (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)17:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)17:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)~

Gustie6,

WP:ISNOT many things, one of the things that I am commmunicating here is that not everything that is a fact goes in the rankings. Not everything that is a fact goes on wikipedia. Many facts do not. While you may be passionate about xyz we need to temper that without statements such as:

"The magazine's rankings determine which of the roughly 2,000 four-year U.S. colleges and universities deliver the most value—that is, a great education, at an affordable price, that prepares students for rewarding careers. The remaining 705 colleges are ranked on 24 factors in three categories: educational quality, affordability, and alumni success."

This reads as promotional and does not belong in the rankings section or on the GAC page at all. It implies additional characteristics which are not fact based. We do post current rankings but try not to expound on the significant virtues of the ranking system. Tangentially your username is Gustie6 are you a communications officer for the college? Please note that WP:COI is also important to keep in mind if you do work for the institution. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

17:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)17:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)17:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)17:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear Randomeditor1000 I am not a communications officer for the college but an alumni. In addition, I edit other wiki pages but yes I am passionate about this one. My concern is that you eliminate facts that should be included; such as the college being ranked number one in Minnesota in recent rankings. Why not, if it is factual information related to the institution? I agree with you that statements listed above by you as an example can be read as promotional, although the statement above is the factual methodology used by the ranking system that is fact based. This type of description can be seen in pages such as https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/St._Olaf_College and many more. 17:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)17:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)17:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)~

Gustie6,

I can appreciate your enthusiasm. Let me start by trying to answer your last point. The St. Olaf College example is quite good. A contrast article that frequently has POV is Carleton College simply because it ranks very highly and tends to have too much info or very strong statements that are not encyclopedic. The St. Olaf example is short and to the point. It states the current ranking in the current year from each source adjacent to the rankings infobox. For the major rankings this usually means one line that just states the ranking, no interpretation. The reason for this is that this an encyclopedia and is not intended to provide original research WP:OR or personal opinion WP:Opinion. The term usually used is to try to be unbiased. You can place information similarly regarding selectivity if you have a source regarding admissions and place that information in the admissions subsection of academics or similar according to the guidance in WP:UNIGUIDE. The information regarding number x y z in state x y z is considered both WP:OR because a source didn't specifically state it and promotional because it implies an interpreted meaning or expectation that is not unbiased. You can include things like size in other areas for example, the University of Minnesota is the largest university in the state of Minnesota. Similarly want sources for items that are not common knowledge. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Randomeditor1000

Right, so why would the same exact information in the exact format be deleted from the Gustavus page but kept on the St.Olaf page? The information is in the designated sub-header. The source is regarding admission. How clearer must it be? It seems as if you are choosing and deciding which source is more valid than another, based on your own opinion. Your stating that my edits are personal opinion but it is not, as shown through the citation. It is a fact that Gustavus has been ranked in the ways mentioned in the last few years. If I include the methodology in addition to citing, then you also state it is in the wrong place. I will shift the information to resemble other wiki pages based on the guidelines. If it is deleted, then it should be from other college pages as well.19:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Gustie6,

The information that was revised out from the Rankings section is NOT in the St. Olaf page. Do not conflate the two at all they are very different. Let's just review line by line since you seem confused. I removed content that was:

1. outdated - (In 2014,)figures from 2015 on back in the rankings section are outdated and are no longer relevant, place the current rankings and do not add opinion. Rankings quickly change and are not important historical dates.

2. extraneous - (The magazine's rankings determine which of the roughly 2,000 four-year U.S. colleges and universities deliver) methodology or other explanations of the rankings system are extraneous and we do not need 300+ pages that say xyz rankings were produced by bob using blah blah for the best xyz colleges, that's why we have a separate page for that ranking publisher. WAMO again is located at: Washington Monthly if you want to revise that, go ahead.

3. original research - (as the best college or university in Minnesota and) ranked x in Minnesota is a type of original research and is not to be included unless it is common knowledge and can be proven with sources.

4. puffery -(as the best college or university in Minnesota and) is the best, is highly regard, is the one of the awesomeness, etc. If it isn't Harvard or an Ivy League school we should try to be as unbiased as possible and keep these types of weasel words out of the information.

5. duplicated - (Gustavus Adolphus College is a highly selective, private, coeducational, residential liberal arts college.) having the same college classification statement 2x is uneeded. It is already in the lead at the beginning, we don't need to repeat this information.

6. I usually rearrange information if it's in the wrong section, in this case I didn't.

That's pretty black and white and relates to the guidance cited earlier. It's not like I made up the WP:UNIGUIDE, WP:OR, WP:OPINION. All of these things together were edited, not just one or the other. Old facts should be removed if they become outdated quickly - like rankings. So, yes, it is a fact that xyz was ranked in 2013 but the average doesn't care about that they are interested in 2017 rankings, maybe 2016 rankings. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Randomeditor1000

In response to 4. Right so in your opinion if it isnt Harvard or an Ivy, a college can't be ranked top in the state? That is your opinion which is affecting your editing. It isn't factual. Now, St. Olaf has the same exact methodology explanation on their page " Washington Monthly assesses the quality of schools based on social mobility (recruiting and graduating low-income students), research (producing cutting-edge scholarship and PhDs), and service (encouraging students to give something back to their country)." which you have repeatably deleted from the Gustavus page. WP:UNIGUIDE, WP:OR, WP:OPINION You are not following with all of these edits might I say.

IN RESPONSE TO YOUR OTHER POINTS:

1. outdated - Disagree, I did not add opinion. What was opinion? And two, I will say that it is outdated, yet many readers might be interested in the range changes since pages are always updated frequently hence the citation. In addition other college pages show rankings from various years since it shows trend but lets give you this one. We eliminate "outdated" information which you have deemed as irrelevant although I deem relevant.

2. extraneous - Also agreed, although once again, other college pages gave these methodology explanations case in point. Rankings can be explained, or not. The explanation has been on the page for a while too, and it wasnt as long as you have stated. But I am trying to be cordial so lets say you are right, although I disagree and maybe you should go and edit out methodology explantions from other college pages too. Methodology explanations assist in explaining the characteristics of the college, which is why there are rankings to begin with. Curiously I am starting to feel like you have a specific "beef" or personal problem against Gustavus.

3. original research - (as the best college or university in Minnesota and) ranked x in Minnesota is a type of original research and is not to be included unless it is common knowledge and can be proven with sources.___ Response : DEFINE COMMON KNOWLEDGE. IT WAS RANKED IN THE NEW YORK TIMES AS NUMBER IN MINNESOTA THIS YEAR 2017 IN JUNE, HENCE THE CITATION WITH THE SOURCE THAT YOU KEEP DELETING. "COMMON KNOWLEDGE" IS OPINION.

4. puffery -(as the best college or university in Minnesota and) is the best, is highly regard, is the one of the awesomeness, etc. If it isn't Harvard or an Ivy League school we should try to be as unbiased as possible and keep these types of weasel words out of the information. Response: THIS IS OPINION by you. Best = #1 which rankings showed. But I will edit to be more clear and precise.

5. duplicated - (Gustavus Adolphus College is a highly selective, private, coeducational, residential liberal arts college.) having the same college classification statement 2x is uneeded. It is already in the lead at the beginning, we don't need to repeat this information. Response: AGREED.

6. I usually rearrange information if it's in the wrong section, in this case I didn't.

That's pretty black and white and relates to the guidance cited earlier. It's not like I made up the WP:UNIGUIDE, WP:OR, WP:OPINION. All of these things together were edited, not just one or the other. Old facts should be removed if they become outdated quickly - like rankings. So, yes, it is a fact that xyz was ranked in 2013 but the average doesn't care about that they are interested in 2017 rankings, maybe 2016 rankings. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)01:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)01:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)01:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)~

01:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)01:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)01:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)~

Hey, I tried to explain these to you, but obviously you have a little more invested than trying to understand what I am getting at. That's fine. Just for your allcaps information WP:Common knowledge is in fact explained elsewhere. So, no, it is not just MY opinion. And NO, don't get upset because you don't understand the points that are being made here. The guidance says we want to Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism even if we desire to be a boosterist. The New York Times didn't specifically state xyz college is THEE best college for XYZ in xyz. Deduction based on that list means that it is WP:OR because it is not common knowledge or a stated point. Try to rephase using just the national ranking, eliminate your term "best in xyz" and then it will remove that concern.

Other pages are not perfect either I agree. They really never are - which is the continuous updating of wikipedia process. I try to work on those as well, and there are other alumni users (and sometimes groups) that work on those pages. My interest generally is the midwest region and specifically institutions that have not had a lot of information added or needed updating see Bemidji State University, St. Catherine University, Metro State University, etc. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)