User talk:Jrkagan/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.122.38.179 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Unbelievable. The vandal is accusing ME of vandalizing the page I keep cleaning up! --Josh Kagan 00:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

First, this page is not your page. Please review Wikipedia’s mission statement.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.122.38.179 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I would respond to this, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. I am intimately familiar with Wikipedia's mission statement. At no time did I ever claim ownership of an article. But on the contrary...[keep reading] --Josh Kagan 20:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Second, we have put a lot of work into this page as well. Most of the other additions came from a consorted effort on our part? Admittedly, you have made some solid contributions as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.122.38.179 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

...you seem to be claiming ownership of the article here. The amount of that "work" that you have contributed to an article has absolutely no bearing on your editorial control in relation to other editors. See WP:OWN. --Josh Kagan 20:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Third, your changes just do not make sense. They disrupt the whole flow of the page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.122.38.179 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

This is patently false. A comprehensive encyclopedia article about a law school should include verifiable information about its reputation, and its reputation is affected by its ranking. And it's not out-of-place to include such information in a section called "Academics and Reputation." It is verifiable information that makes perfect sense, included in a logical location in the article. If, however, you want to relocate the information to a different part of the page, even under a different heading, I would not oppose that. I only object to censoring the information, not presenting it logically. --Josh Kagan 20:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fourth, don’t let this become about pride. You might not like some changes made to this page, but you do not have the right to determine what content is deemed “worthy.”—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.122.38.179 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't see how this can be about pride for me. I'm actually a student at the very school mentioned in the article. But I also recognize the need for an article with a NPOV. You are correct that I don't get to determine what content is "worthy," but in this case neither do you. You are the one who has taken it upon himself to compulsively remove accurate verifiable content simply because you don't think it is worthy. At no time did I ever remove any content from the article. Even if you don't like the fact that our school is ranked in the third tier, you don't get to censor that fact. I'm sorry for any confusion you may have had about that. --Josh Kagan 20:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fifth, be more careful about accusations and personal attacks. Please demonstrate that you are above that. If you continue, this matter will be taken directly to Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.122.38.179 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't see a reason to respond to this because I never personally attacked you. Check the history on your talk page; maybe it was another Wikipedian and you are mistaken. However, you did personally attack Taco325i, accusing him of having an agenda and falsely asserting that he cannot be trusted. You should consider apologizing to him for that. --Josh Kagan 20:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with 70.122.38.179, Taco325i has some sort of agenda. What's up with his mission to put down other schools? Re: "revised very POV and misleading boastings" and "absolutely loathes Wikipedians who use articles to brag about the minor insignificant achievements of themselves, their schools, organizations, or localities".

RV War

This is a silly rv war. I agree the rankings info has some probative value, although not much. 70.122.38.179 has entered the information you seem so hell bent in inserting. What is wrong with the current format? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.201.209 (talk • contribs)

This is fine now. I never complained about the current format. As I indicated on 70.122.38.179's talk page:

70.122.38.179, if you want to discuss a different way to include the ranking information (perhaps a presentation of the information that would be easier to understand in the context of your contributions), I'm completely open to that. I think I speak for the entire Wikipedia community when I say that if you know of a better way to present information in the article, we'd like to see it happen. The only thing I'm not open to is the removal (censorship) of the information completely. But if what you want is to improve the flow of the article without removing relevant information in the process, then that's fine. In fact, I think that would be a wonderful contribution. // JoshKagan 01:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I was never "hell-bent" on inserting the information; the information was already there, added by another editor; I was only concerned that it not be arbitrarily deleted. If 70.122.38.179 and all of his sock puppets want to improve the article, and those improvements involve presenting that particular piece of information differently, then that's fine. Just don't go deleting things for the sport of it. I agree that the USN Rankings are not without controversy themselves, but that doesn't make them less relevant. Like it or not, the USN Ranking is one of the first pieces of information that many people seek out when researching a law school. NPOV means that we present all of the information and then let the reader decide. // JoshKagan ^{Jrkagan | talk} 04:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You both obviously care about the Southwestern page. Why don’t you both use you time and talents to add more content about the school. 70.122.38.179 you should add those photos. Jrkagen you should help him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.201.209 (talk • contribs)

I agree completely that 70.122.38.179 and I should be working on improving articles and not compulsive 'rv's. 70.122.38.179's last edit seems to indicate that s/he no longer wants to continue removing information from the article. 70.122.38.179 has also contributed a great deal of text to the article over the past week, including a much-needed discussion of the school's varied academic programs; hopefully this is a sign of things to come. // JoshKagan ^{Jrkagan | talk} 04:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Southwestern University School of Law

70.122.38.179 (talk · contribs), in their second to the last group of edits, left in the information on SUSL being in Tier 3 (although they moved it to near the bottom of the article). Those edits also had other good information in them (as have other edits of theirs). [1] All your latest edit did was add a second copy of the Reputation section closer to the top of the article while adding "rv censorship of ranking info..." to the edit summary.

As an outsider to this edit war, it looks to me as if you have turned unreasonable as well. Quite frankly, I've grown tired of the the actions of both of you, so I've asked for the page to be fully protected. Hopefully, with a little time out, you'll both return to helping improve the Southwestern University School of Law article rather than just edit war over a single paragraph.

The two of you both appear to be students of SUSL (or possibly a student and an alumni). Either way, both of you are probably in the LA area. Why don't you both agree to meet for coffee, have a nice chat, and possibly settle things face-to-face. ^Blank ^Verse 12:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've left some comments at Talk:Southwestern University School of Law and I would appreciate it if you looked over my comments and replied with any of your concerns. ^Blank ^Verse 11:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my accusation. I forgot to assume good faith. However, it did look, at first glance, as if you had begun an escalation in the edit war, which is something that happens too often in Wikipedia edit wars. The last time I was peripherally involved in an edit war it lasted for months and eventually ended up with one participant banned for a year.

I would appreciate it if you would go to Talk:Southwestern University School of Law#Page protection and add your opinion of the most recent version of the "Academic reputation" section. Once you've done that, I'll try to get 70.122.38.179 (talk · contribs) to also agree, and then I'll ask to get the article unprotected.

BTW: It looks like 70.122.38.179 is probably in Austin, Texas. What is interesting about that is the other anon IP to edit your talk page, 70.244.201.209 (talk · contribs), is also in Austin, but using a different ISP (swbell.net instead of rr.com).

As for finding citations for the article, you should have sufficient resources at school to be able to find ones to back up most information in the article. Any statement where a citation can't be found should then be deleted. After that's done, the article can be nominated as a Good article (and maybe ask for a Peer review for it as well). ^Blank ^Verse 10:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)