Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:29, 4 January 2009

Archives

Archive 1 2

northwestern introduction

Thanks for all your edits. Can you change "In 2007, the university was..." into present tense and perhaps change 2007 to "today"? It sounds like the university was reorganized just last year. I agree that most of the rankings are not verifiable, but I think perhaps Kellogg and Medill should stay on there. Deen Gu (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

NU Arch Image

I would actually like a more zoomed out shot of the arch, so people would know what the surrounding area looks like. What do you think? Deen Gu (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: MIT

Hi there -- I'll help out in the PR when I get the chance (which should be soon). I recommend you ask for Karanacs' help as well. She has been instrumental in getting most of the Texas A&M-related articles to FA status. She has also helped get other articles become featured too. Good luck! BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, I'm flying from California to Florida tonight, so I won't be able to do it right now. (just popping in really quick for email) Anyways, I'll take a look at it when I'm settled back in. Do you know what happened to NoeticSage? NoeticSage disappeared some months ago and I haven't found someone else to take over some of the WP:UNI stuff. - Jameson L. Tai 19:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, I'd be glad to help with the PR and will take a look in a day or two. Regards, Kevin Forsyth (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Lentower#MIT for the reply to your query. Lentower (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Without extensively reading the article, I must say that the article has come a LONG way since FAC in Jan 2007. It looks great! But "looking great" isn't the only thing required for it to pass FA ;) I don't have a chance to read it closely right now, but will try to in the near future. If Peer Review is closed at that time, I'll just leave comments on your talk page. Cheers, -Bluedog423 19:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the invite. You've sapped all the life out of me for now, but I can't promise I won't come home drunk at some point this weekend and get involved. :) --Elred (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Set up Don Stevenson (musician) page

...and redirectec "Don Stevenson" to Don Stevenson (musician) from Moby Grape. Forgot to clear with you first, since you hadn't seen much significance in my original attempt to set up a page for Don Stevenson. Could you check the Don Stevenson (musician) page and see if sufficient individual significance has been demonstrated. Many thanks in advance.

Dreadarthur (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

High School Musical

I noticed the article you put up for deletion was up there twice, so I tried to remove the duplicate; did I remove the whole thing? If so, sorry. Beemer69 22:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

MIT "T" field experiment

Thanks for your note. I'd be glad to help out, although I am not a jurist. I will be glad to contribute as I can do reasonably. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. Anderson. It's also a hugely sensitive issue, especially since the presentation slides actually leaked out I think. Best Wishes and many thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be honoured and happy to do what I can, at the very least to fulfill Linus's Law at the very least. Good to be on board. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brian. We ran into an edit conflict since I was making a big edit on a slow computer and you were editing the article too, unbeknownst to me. How is it looking ? Cheers. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian, for your kind note. It looks good so far. Well done to you too. I saw you condensed the Nohl section. That was a good idea. We lost that in the edit conflict previously. Also, I linked to NXP since Schneier's quote refers to "NXP" without any prior explanation of who they are, viz. the manufacturer of the chip set for the smartcard. Let's keep it rolling as events dictate. Detective Joe Friday (Jack Webb) said it all: "Just the facts, ..., just the facts ...". ;) Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Of tangential interest ? "Vulnerabilities in the Mifare Classic RFID system confirmed" - Heise News, UK, 20 March 2008, 13:15 ... or "Mifare manufacturer NXP files suit against security researchers" - a group of researchers at Radboud University in Nijmegen, Holland. "the suit is intended to prevent the scientists from their planned October publication of the results of their research on the poor security of the Mifare Classic chip ..." Heise news, 11 July 2008, 18:43 ... Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one more point regarding your comment. This is all meant to be a cloudy issue and a boundary condition case challenge since basically the cat got out of the bag already in prior art in Europe and America before the Tech team did their research and implementation. Oddly enough, in such constrained conditions legally, there is paradoxically the widest latitude for opinion and leverage. I'm not 100% sure what the "T" is claiming now since it's a fait accompli. The conference where they were to present the slides has come and gone. And 99.9% of the T-riding populace can't even imagine what the engineering and math involved is like or ever use it. I guess it's like the new Batman movie: the one who can do something with it can cause potential harm as with a simple playing card, The Joker. But as you demonstrated with your inclusion of the letter from professors (which didn't include Rivest or anyone from Tech), the best one can get out of all this is restraint, which groups like EFF disdain. It's a complicated issue. "Hacking" has always been politically viewed by most governments and organisations as near anarchical behaviour. And of course a parallel issue is the published information about e-voting machines and software programs. And I might add, the New York Times with the Pentagon Papers publication. And the film "Three Days of the Condor". One can see the MBTA's point and concern about the MIFARE system and yet the EFF's philosophical point of view. Cheers. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brian. The two articles from the front page of MIT Tech newspaper, current issue, were I thought a good synopsis of the case. But you thought they were redundant. Oh well. Life goes on. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brian. Thanks for your comments. Your points are well taken. Thanks and best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

Thanks for signing up. You may be interested in Misplaced Pages:CHICAGO/leadership.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Texas Tech FAC

Hey mate, would you please strike-through your notes on the FAC that you believe have been satisfied? The thing is getting pretty unwieldy and it would help us keep things moving. Thanks.--Elred (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOOSTER

I took a very quick look at the article, reading through it at a comfortable speed, and very carefully not checking the history to see what changes have been made... just a "zero-based" look at it as it is now... and it looks fine to me.

I do have one factual question. I objected recently to a characterization of a university as the "Nth-best public university" on the grounds that it was original research, i.e. selectively created from a list that did not break out public universities, and was told that the printed copy of the U. S. News rankings actually does contained a ranked list of public universities. If this is true... I haven't had a chance to check it personally... then I suppose "Nth-best public university" can be directly sourced... and even though I still hate it, my grounds for hating it have been undercut.

I certainly don't own a copy of the U. S. News ranking book, and I resent the time it will take to dig one out at the library, but I guess I have to do it.

Of course, U. S. News has literally dozens of lists... probably so that admissions brochure writers can always find some list in which their university is highly ranked... Dpbsmith (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO roles

It is not exactly clear to me what the best way to divide the responsibilities for the new coordinators who have volunteered. Here is what I think we need in terms of review coordinators:

1. we need at least one person to be the peer review coordinator for WP:CHICAGO. This person would be responsible for both WP:CHIR#PR, which is for internal peer reviews within the project and WP:CHIR#EPR, which are peer reviews at WP:PR and elsewhere that we should try to transclude to WP:CHIR. I think such a person should comment on all reviews listed at either of these places and coordinate archiving of such reviews. This person should also monitor WT:CHICAGO for articles seeking assistance and make sure the editors are aware that we now have project reviews. In the early stages of the project this person should also comment on all discussions at WP:CHIR#A-CLASS until we build up some momentum.
2. we need at least one person to be the A-Class review coordinator for WP:CHICAGO. This person would be responsible for WP:CHIR#A-CLASS. This person should comment on all reviews there and coordinate archiving of such reviews. This person should also monitor WP:CHIR#FAC and WP:FAC because articles listed for FAC review should often come from our A-Class pool in the future. Also articles that fail may come to our A-Class for guidance. In the early stages of the project this person should comment on all discussions at either WP:CHIR#PR or WP:CHIR#EPR in order to help get the momentum going for our review process.
3. we need someone to monitor delistings at WP:FAR, WP:FARC, WP:FLRC, WP:GAR, and keep an eye on individual GAR discussions. This person should keep an eye on whether all the leading editors of each article, the leading editors of each article's talk page, and the projects listed on the talk pages have been duly notified. This will help maximize the likelihood that we find people to respond to discussion comments. Transcluding all articles to the proper locations at WP:CHIR is a must. This person hopefully will have an interest in helping to clean up an occasional article or two as well.

Generally, discussion pages are removed immediately at WP:CHIR, but kept at WP:CHIDISCUSS for two weeks after closing. I have been attempting to do all of these things for the project myself as well as my other tasks. We have three volunteers who mentioned an interest in reviews so each of you should discuss among yourselves which coordinator you would like to be.

Two of the review coordinator respondents also listed Assessments. Within the assessment department at WP:CHIASSESS we need a few tasks handled as well.

1. Assessment requests need to be responded to.
2. WP:CHIQUALITY and WP:CHIPRIORITY need to be kept up to date
3. Category:Unknown-importance Chicago articles and Category:Unassessed Chicago articles need to be kept up
4. Category:Top-importance Chicago articles needs to be administered. We have made it policy to keep the Top-importance for the top .2% of all WP:CHICAGO articles. Thus the following will be the next promotions based on the last round of voting:

Magnificent Mile -when the project gets to 16000 articles

Haymarket Riot -16500 articles

Daniel Burnham -17000 articles

Chicago River -17500 articles

Lake Shore Drive -18000 articles

Museum of Science and Industry (Chicago) -18500 articles

Chicago Tribune -19000 articles

The following will be considered for promotion or we may call for another vote or we may discontinue promoting altogether: Soldier Field -19500 articles

Sears, Roebuck and Company -20000 articles

Chicago school (architecture) -20500 articles

William Wrigley Jr.-21000articles

New candidates for Top-importance should be continually brought forth. Alternative selection methods may be considered, but currently we support or oppose inclusion on a ballot and then vote on the ballot. We should keep discussion open on this issue. Again, please discuss the division of responsibility. I am hoping to have all responsibilities assigned and be a fairly fully functional project on September 1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if I was mistaken in my interpretation of your interest. Were you not interested in being a coordinator and instead being more of a helper?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if you would like to be the peer review coordinator, please jump in at WP:CHIR. There are currently four peer reviews that are active. Jay Pritzker Pavilion is an internal review that is only seen by our project. Chicago Midway International Airport is an external review. Both Stevenson High School (Lincolnshire, Illinois) and Candace Parker are technically outside of the domain of WP:CHICAGO because they are outside of Cook County, Illinois. However, people interested in the project may be interested in them. In any case, the important part of your role is to make sure the internal reviews get addressed. Also, I feel that since A-Class reviews need to be reviewed by two people, the peer review coordinator should comment on the A-Class reviews within the project. This is probably more important to the success of the project than commenting on external reviews. I will ask the A-Class coordinator to comment on internal peer reviews as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Jena Six

I've addressed the textual matters you posited. However, some of the things you've mentioned (what you consider tangential matters, etc.) can't be done without gutting the article. In view of the changes I have made, would you consider striking your oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

re: FPC advice

Hi Madcoverboy,
To be completely honest (which is the best policy IMO) I don't think it will be a successful candidate. I doubt it will get unanimously opposed, but it's not likely to get through for three reasons. Reason 1: misalignment throughout the image (the columns are the most problematic but the tree leaves and moving people are quite bad too). Reason 2: Photomatix style HDR images, although striking, are generally frowned upon on FPC due to unrealistic colour rendition. Reason 3: As a result of the misalignments mentioned before (or perhaps your wide angle lens) the image isn't terribly sharp. Having said all that I would strongly encourage you to nominate it anyway as criticism is extremely helpful in becoming a better photographer (both in terms of motivation - i'll show them! - and in terms of finding the problems in your technique). Hope that helps --Fir0002 08:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fitchburg State College

Thank you for your comment and help with Fitchburg State College. I realize it is a at a point where all the information is mostly there, but it needs massive reorginization. Thanks again for taking time and reviewing it for me!--Found5dollar (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Kenyon College and selectivity

Regarding your recent edit to Kenyon College -- I agree that "highly selective" is somewhat subjective and I have tried to restore the article to NPOV. The term "selective," however, when applied to college admissions, actually means something relatively tangible--it is generally used to refer to colleges that have an admissions process involving several steps (interviews, etc.) and don't accept all or even close to all applicants (as opposed to schools that, for example, have rolling admissions, no interviews, and accept over 90% of applicants). This article, for example, uses the term in that sense. There is a standard rating system for ranking colleges' selectivity, the Barron Selectivity measure, that is not perfect but is enough that calling a college "selective" here is not making a subjective description, but rather objectively placing the school among a group of other schools that share the same status. This article and this article are some more random examples of the term used in this sense, to define a generally accepted group of schools. --Politizer (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Politzer is correct. You made the same edit to Luther College, but that term is standard use in how school admissions are defined - see , , and for examples. It has nothing to do with subjective prestige, which is why it is used on so many other college pages. Because of this, you should probably revert the dozens of similar edits you've made to other schools. Thanks. Iulus Ascanius (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I echo the concerns related above. I strongly recommend you take this up with other editors before continuing to remove similar language from so many articles. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As you point out there are several different indices, standards, and organizations promulgating rankings and other college information, each employing different definitions and metrics to classify institutions. Thus, to assert that Kenyon is "selective" necessarily implies either an overborad, generic definition common to the vast majority of higher education institutions (as you suggest) or a classification with the thinnest veneer or reliability and based upon sources with divergent or even incompatible definitions (US News, Barrons, Carnegie, NSF, etc) but nevertheless intended to connote eliteness. I believe that if the word is intended as the definition you propose, it is redundant as indeed the vast majority of institutions are "selective" and indeed the vast majority of even the most "selective" institutions make no mention of this in the lead of their articles. The term is entirely appropriate within a section based upon admissions information and academics, but to state it in the first sentence of the lead gives it undue weight. That Kenyon is a liberal arts institution, located in Gambier, founded in 1824, and not publicly owned or controlled are important, specific, and uncontroversial assertions. Uncritically describing it as "selective" in the lead is unspecific at best and boosterism at worst. Thus, it shouldn't be included at all in the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I beg to differ. Selectivity is a measure of notability. It would be appropriate to perhaps mention one or more selectivity indexes (as Politzer does), but selectivity is in fact major distinguishing factor among colleges, and the vast majority are not selective. Selectivity implies that there is competition to get into the college, which of course is used in boosting a college, but then so are most of the other statistical facts listed in college articles. I thin it is appropriate to include features that distinguish particular colleges and universties in the lead: size, selectivity, location, academic specialties, religious affiliation, and history are all applicable, and all could also be perceived as boosterish. I think all should be reverted, or reverted with references given for selectivity--Natcase (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I second concerns related above by ElKevbo. You should first seek consensus before continuing to remove similar language from so many articles. What grounds do you have for doing so given that the discussion at that Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_academic_boosterism#Alternative_consensus demonstrates there is no consensus and, if anything, many editors who disagree with your claims? Aren't your repeated edits to the Williams College page somewhat rude? David.Kane (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

photo

Hey mate, this photo looks a little over-processed to me. Have you put some sort of HDR or fish-eye effect on it? It's an incredible shot in an artistic sense, but it looks a little too 'tampered-with' to be encyclopedic. I think that may cause you some problems when you do the FAC. I don't know if you're a photoshop guy or not, but if you need help cleaning up images or anything let me know.--Elred (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't envy you the task of trying to summarize MIT research projects. Maybe it would be easier to list the things they aren't working on. As a side note, one thing I've been doing on the TTU page that I think is a cool touch... I've been formatting most of our images to 1680x1050 so they are perfect resolution should someone want to use them for a widescreen desktop background. It also helps to give the page a good sense of continuity.--Elred (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Williams College. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the Williams College article and taking on David.Kane. Scwalsh (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

résumés

Hi Madcoverboy.

You've linked to WP:RESUME on an AFD. There's a discussion about that essay going on at Misplaced Pages talk:Misplaced Pages is not the place to post your résumé#Tone - you might want to join in. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 19:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

minor edits

Hi Madcoverboy, just a quick note:

Help:Minor edit A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.

Removing mention of USNWR rankings from the Williams College lede might be a good decision, but I don't think it's at all true that it "could never be the subject of a dispute." Thanks. Npdoty (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As a previous active contributor of WP:UNI/COTF...

We are starting WP:UNI/COTM, please review the ten randomly selected nominees and vote for the articles you wish to improve. (Category:WikiProject Universities COTM candidates) The COTM will run throughout the month of December. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or comment on WT:UNI/COTM. Have a great day! - Jameson L. Tai 21:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote

The quote was by a major magazine. It also gives a history of trouble at the school. 68.192.45.84 (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The person who gave the quote is unknown as no author is given. The article is not written from a WP:NPOV. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,842336,00.html Zeuscgp (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

time magazine is a neutral magazine. 68.192.45.84 (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The magazine is not in question, the article is. Zeuscgp (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Toolserveraccount

Hello Madcoverboy,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your Freenode-nick (if you have one), your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 16:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A new round of Collaboration of the Month is about to begin!

The current University Collaborations of the Month is University of California, Berkeley
Every month a B-Class higher education-related topic is chosen for you to improve. Be bold! This COTM is organized by Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Universities. (Nominate future collaborations or see past collaborations.) This WP:UNI/COTM is effective: Dec 01 2008 ~ Dec 31 2008. Pick your next WikiProject Universities COTM Candidate!

Yes, it's that time! A new article has been chosen our COTM next month.

Here's something I want to try, start treating it as a peer review. Start by skimming through the article, making sure the article fits our article guidelines. Then review for content: any copyvio, notability issues, reference listings, following the Manual of Style. Again, let's make sure we stick to the objectives listed on WP:UNI/COTM. Feel free to use the talk page of the article or COTM page to reflect or express opinions on how to make this program even better. Feel free to utilize #wikipedia-en-robotics if you wish, that channel doesn't get used enough and I'm usually there if I'm near a computer.

And here's something even more radical. See if you can attract authors currently maintaining the different COTM articles to join our WikiProject and better yet, our COTM project. I found when I started this program, jumping ships and editing other universities' articles was a big leap, but it's been very fun so far. I'd like to see more people actively participating.

Let's start off the new COTM program the right way. I want to see those articles in GA and FA soon. Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving holiday and enjoy those Black Friday deals. - Jameson L. Tai 09:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

usf

hey, you might want to take a look at university of san francisco. some kids are currently "improving" it as a class project in "media studies." i don't have time to wade into it myself, but i'm sure they could learn a lot about wikipedia from interacting with you. best, Amerique 16:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

USF Media Studies Final

Hello Madcoverboy,

I received your message on my user page. Obviously I am not the Misplaced Pages expert that you are, but I am a USF student currently, and I am engaged in a Final Project for a class to update and renovate OUR page. I don't know what your history with the University is, but if you actually read through the newly updated page, you will see that the information being added comes directly from the USF website, more specifically the Residence Life portion (http://www.usfca.edu/residence_life/). Indeed, if in your opinion, the information on the University's own website is incorrect, then maybe you should be in communication with those responsible for the content on the website. I would appreciate if you did not delete the hard, honest, and unbiased work our class is contributing for our final project. Above, it was mentioned that we could learn a lot about Misplaced Pages from interacting with you, but how can we learn if our page is being deleted every time we edit? Hope we can come to an agreement. Thanks, --KateSpan (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it is not YOUR page. It is Misplaced Pages's, so anybody can edit it. And it doesn't matter where you got the information - if it doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages, then it doesn't belong in that article. Please read the guidelines supplied by Madcoverboy, he knows what he's talking about.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

University of San Francisco

Hey madcoverboy, I'm working with the students who are editing the University of San Francisco and Residence halls at the University of San Francisco pages, and I'll take responsibility for cleaning it up after they are done if there is stuff left to do. I've gone over all the guidelines with them, but they are all newbies -- so WP:BITE applies :) Anyway, thanks for your watchful eye -- I'll talk to them, ok? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

p.s. checked the diffs; thanks for doing so much cleanup work. Sorry the article has gotten a little out of control... -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

		The University Barnstar
		For patiently working with many eager, new contributors to University of San Francisco and helping them direct their energies and work productively. ElKevbo (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A well-earned barnstar! Amerique 02:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! Thanks. I'm just helping with the class so don't have access to their email lists, but I sent a message via the class professor (user:davidms) about working with other Wikipedians. best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

What a nice surprise! Thank you for the barnstar. Alanraywiki (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of History of the College of William & Mary

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article History of the College of William & Mary, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This is an exact copy of text in the College of William & Mary article. There is no reason for such duplication.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Truthanado (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

List of colleges and universities in Houston

Should Texas A&M University, Prairie View A&M, Sam Houston State University and Stephen F. Austin State University be listed at List of colleges and universities in Houston? Please see Talk:List of colleges and universities in Houston. Your input is appreciated, Thanks Postoak (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

University of Michigan

I have recently went through the entire article, addressing concerns that you have placed in the article's discussion page. If you have the chance, can you take a look at it? Personally, I have not been editing as much as I used to, and am wary of seeing the article end up on FAR, given that, from a look through other FA university articles, there doesn't appear to be a consensus of what an university FA article should be (unless I am missing something). Pentawing 19:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's to boosterism...

- Jameson L. Tai has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! You know... if we had that many people look at political boosterism, we might actually have some cleaner politics :) Anyways, happy new year! - Jameson L. Tai 09:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

University Leads

You recently wrote: "Taking WP:LEAD and combining with WP:UNIGUIDE: "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"" "All colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Misplaced Pages." There's absolutely no need to declare the university to be one of the best in the world to justify its notability because its notability was never in doubt simply being a university in the first place."

I respectfully disagree with your reasoning and your conclusion. Furthermore, I think that we have swung too far in the direction of sanitizing articles when we can't write important and correct statements noting that some institutions like UC-Berkeley or Harvard are widely considered to be among the very best in the world. I know that most of the time statements like that are an idle boast with little substantial evidence but when they're true we shouldn't shy away from writing them. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally speaking

.... it was even harder to tell if you had said anything at all amid the slamming left and right of policies. You really think someone is going examine their edit in light of your linking of nine policies? Just quote the pertinent sentence with a link to the whole thing. Communicate, in other words. Good set of passive-aggressive jabs on your part, though. --KP Botany (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)