User talk:Lquilter/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

This is an archive of completed discussions from 2006 on the User talk:Lquilter page.

Contents 1 Fair use article 2 Nicole King 3 Re: CTEA/Opposition references 4 quite an assumption... 5 Iota Sigma Pi 6 Iota Sigma Pi/rewrite 7 Nadine Gordimer 8 Eye tracking 9 Smile 10 Section 230 11 Substing 12 i don't know what happened 13 Templates, categories, inclusion 14 GPA Curve Mess

Fair use article

At Talk:fair use you seem to have removed, without archiving, my objections to the section Fair use#Fair use in Wikipedia in that article. Your edit summaries suggest that somehow my comments are off topic. Now, if the consensus is that I'm wrong I fully accept not changing the article (and, as you can see, I haven't yet changed it), but it doesn't make my remarks off-topic.

Please take a good look at what I wrote and consider whether you really believe I was off topic. If you decide I was not, please restore my remarks. If you decide I was, I would appreciate if you tell me where, exactly, you feel would be a more appropriate place for me to raise this question. - Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

-- I not only "seem to have", I actually did. My edit, which was intended to add just the tiny bit of revised text you see at the top, somehow also took out a bunch of stuff below in different sections. Not sure how that happened since I definitely did not attempt to edit or delete that material. A very strange caching problem on my local browser? I am trying to go back and replace all the missing text that I deleted. LQ 12:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nicole King

I noticed this article and that it had been tagged as a speedy deletion candidate by someone. I removed the speedy tagging, as the stub had a clear assertion of notability, but you should really expand it. Unless you do, it might as well be deleted because of lack of meaningful content. up+land 21:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm working on it. I was a little surprised to get the notice of speedy deletion only five minutes after I added the initial entry. Individual entries for every single Playmate of the Month have managed to survive indefinitely without challenge, so I was a little surprised to see that an entry on an exciting woman scientist challenged within 5 minutes. -- LQ 17:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: CTEA/Opposition references

Well I started going through the article looking for unsourced facts and I put {{fact}} after each one. I then realized that I would likely be doing that for quite a while if I continued. That was just the section I started on, so it was also the section I edited. I was somewhat surprised that there was no discussion of the lack of references on the talk page. Theshibboleth 23:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

quite an assumption...

Yeah. Isn't it. But what a predictable one...

Yonmei 16:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Iota Sigma Pi

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Iota Sigma Pi, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.iotasigmapi.info/about.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), you can comment to that effect on Talk:Iota Sigma Pi. Then you should do one of the following:

• Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state at Talk:Iota Sigma Pi where we can find that note; or
• Send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Iota Sigma Pi.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Interiot 22:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Iota Sigma Pi/rewrite

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Iota Sigma Pi/rewrite. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 01:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding the {{db-author}} tag automatically lists the page on a list of pages nominated for speedy deletion, so it will be taken care of more quickly, and this is potentially less confusing in the meantime than a blank page. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 02:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Nadine Gordimer

Hi LQ, I just wanted to let you know I am out of town due to family emergency and not keeping up with what's happened on the Nadine Gordimer page! Will rejoin the conversation when possible.DianaW 15:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Eye tracking

Thanks for your well thought out contribution on Talk:Eye tracking! --Ronz 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Section 230

Thanks! You are correct on that - thanks. I was exhausted last night.Jance 23:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Substing

Warning messages on this page have been subst'd using the AutoWikiBrowser . Note:This is not a new warning, but only some minor maintenance, following Wikipedias policy of subst'ing warning templates. Thank you.- Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

i don't know what happened

I wrote a long reply to you there. I looked at it in preview, and everything was great. I submitted it. I do not know why it reverted instead. There have been history problems all day, see WP:VPT#Lost last half hour of edits. I am really sorry that happened. I am going to go revert it. I don't know if I have the energy to write my reply again though. — coelacan talk — 03:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad we're still cool =) About half of what I said on the template talk page is also on Tawk Dawk already, I'm probably just going to leave it at that for tonight. — coelacan talk — 03:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's easier to get upset in good-faith disagreements because you know the other people are taking it seriously, and if they'd just be more rational, darn it, they'd see it your way. =) When going head-to-head with crazies, you don't have any serious expectation of them so you're buffered and you're not actually bothered; you only have to help them demonstrate to others that they actually are crazy and should be dismissed as such. At least that's been roughly my experience. — coelacan talk — 03:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Templates, categories, inclusion

You asked a somewhat confusing question at Template talk:WikiProject Gender Studies Tasks. I've done my best to answer it, though possibly I've misunderstood. - Jmabel | Talk 02:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

GPA Curve Mess

Hi Lquilter,

Thanks for your help in the debate on the Stanford article. I'm brand new to wikipedia and sure I am doing this wrong, but I was hoping to get your advice/help again. The same user has edited the page "Law school in the United States" to include the following section

**Grades

Grades in law school are very competitive. Most schools grade on a curve. Stanford Law School has a mean of 3.4, the highest in the country. Other schools have lower curves. Most schools and employers emphasize class rank over GPA.

Now c'mon. I'm beginning to think this user has something against Stanford in particular for it's grading policies, which are obviously inflated but I think no more so than it's closest peers. The user started an article listing GPA curves for each school as well, and as of right now it only has Stanford and Wisconsin listed. I think that's a step in the right direction, if the user can get the article more flushed out, but as is I think he's really just throwing stones. I'm a student at Stanford (obviously why I'm so defensive), and have several friends at Harvard who have told me their curve is identical. Anyway, I ramble, but please let me know if you agree or if perhaps I am being overly sensitive. Defensiveness aside, I think it's just deceptive and somewhat irrelevant to be included in any article as it stands. Thanks!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.44.212.48 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 28 December 2006.

I'm answering here rather than on your IP address talk page. First of all, I wouldn't worry too much about Stanford looking bad for its grading policies--the way the curve works is oblique enough that most people (99.9%) aren't going to understand any possible connection to grade inflation. Second, obviously, information needs to be neutral & not giving undue weight to any particular thing, so one doesn't want Stanford to be singled out in particular. Third, it looks to me like the commentator is trying to be responsive to the earlier comments on the Stanford page, by dealing with the larger problem and broadening the scope of the issue. So it doesn't seem to me to be an attack on Stanford right now. --lquilter 15:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lquilter. I won't keep fighting that fight, I just especially didn't like him saying that Stanford's was the highest in the country without any foundation.