Talk:College of the Canyons
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
  |
Hey Pal, a revert war is going to be the least of your problems if you keep reposting the defamatory comments regarding the college under the controversy section.
No, the college did not participate in "numerous 'enrollment bloating' endeavors in order to procure additional funding from the state." Such an allegation of criminal wrongdoing is LIBEL. You may have your own opinions regarding the issue, but to post them here as FACT, is LIBEL. No, it didn't happen, and I am in a position to know. That, my friend is a very serious allegation, which could lead to legal action against you (since your Ip number is a matter of record) as well as Wikipedia, since it is a republisher. And I'm going to push hard to see that it happends.
You are entitled to your opinions, as full of bullshit as they may be. Van Hook is the highest paid CC president, and she's worth about 3 times what she's getting paid. There was no "outcry" other than a few "activists" who were generally too timid to speak in any forum aside from this one, i.e., hiding behind a computer screen. In fact, the community members who showed up at the board meeting supported Van Hook's raise. She is the individual, more than anyone else, who has taken COC from College of the Crayons to the highly ranked institution it is today. I watch her in action every day. I know what she does. She earns it.
There was no tampering with the part-time union, if you want to call the stooges that run AFT a union. There are no "routine salary raises for friends and comrades" (oh please . . stop with the workers of the world unite bullshit.) These are extremely hard-working individuals who work like dogs and deserve the pay they get.
What I see in your second parargraph is a great deal of whining. Have you ever been in the corporate world? Do you know what hard work in a dog-eat-dog environment is? Not if you've spent your life teaching at the community college level. You have the greatest job in the world. You are as "taken care of" as it gets in a capitalist society, absent being on welfare. It's not even 40 hours a week. My god!!!! Show some balls. Appreciate what you have. Stop throwing rocks and do something contructive. Your'e attacking a fricking institution of higher learning. Get over it and yourself.
- First off, I'm not even the one who wrote the Controversy section, these discussion-less reverts were occuring long before I hopped into this article, so your accusations about them being "my" "opinions" aren't even grounded in reality. The point you are wholly missing is this: you do not remove entire sections in ANY Wikipedia article without taking it to the article's Talk page first. Looking at the article's History I see this has gone on since at least March. Why did you not at least leave mention of your reasons in the Talk page? Deletions with no explanations whatsoever are wholly inexcusable on Wikipedia. --I am not good at running 07:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest running in this dispute. Also, legal threats against our members is not allowed. --mboverload@ 10:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I'm not getting into a revert war here, but...
I'm not going to let User:209.179.168.56 drag me into a revert war, but said person isn't referring to this article's Talk whenever (s)he keeps removing an entire section in this article. What can be done? --I am not good at running 03:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] In fact...
It seems this article has a rather long history of various IP addresses removing this section without prior discussion. What can be done? Does anyone even read these Discussion pages for such low-profile articles? --I am not good at running 22:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Where is the source for the 'Controversy' section? Please verify that section before you put it back in. I have blocked the IP that posted the legal threat above per WP:NLT, but that doesn't mean unsourced 'controversy' allegations should be posted in Wikipedia articles. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Because the person finally cooperated by explaining why (s)he deleted the entire section (since my understanding is that deleting entire sections of an article without giving an explanation is vandalism -- correct me if I'm wrong), I'm not going to revert it anymore. --I am not good at running 21:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- From an outsider, this looks like a local debate, perhaps even some sort of vendetta or someone's favorite piece of investigative reporting. Given the nature of its accusations, it really needs to be fully sourced. I'm also thinking that User:I am not good at running needs to be reminded that edit comments such as "DISCUSS IT IN THE ARTICLE'S FUCKING DISCUSSION IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A PARTICULAR SECTION"[1] are incivil and likely to lead to unmeasured responses. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
