User talk:College Watch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Please edit my edits (UC Riverside article)

I don't know whether you can do this, but I seem to be the anti-UCRGrad editor who is making the most edits. It would be easier for me to revert back to them (after they are reverted by UCRGrad/Insert-Belltower) if other editors edited my edits (go to latest starkt page in the history section) instead of the article itself. That way I wouldn't be eliminating good edits by other editors. I've sent this message to Szyslak, Amerique, WHS, ElKevbo, Danny Lithbourne and Teknosoul02. Thanks. starkt 14:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will give it a try, but what happens if somebody makes a good edit after you do? Maybe a better procedure might be to go to the last edit JUST BEFORE UCRGrad or Belltower has done an edit, take a look at THAT one (doing light or heavy editing if needed) and then posting it.
In other words, treat UCRGrad/Insert-Belltower as non-existent for the purpose of editing. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 03:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I love your pics

hey, I really love the pictures you've done! keep up the good work!!! KingstonJr 15:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racial makeup

Hi! I noticed you felt the racial makeup for Riverside, California was not important. The racial makeup is included in the articles for several large cities (Los Angeles, California, New York City) and several featured articles (Ann Arbor, Michigan, Cleveland, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan), as well as recommended in templates by Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. I went ahead and corrected the racial makeup and re-added it to the article. Thanks, Brien Clark 05:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection tag

  • Adding the tag is useless unless an admin actually protects the page. JuJube 08:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Demographics in Riverside, California

I understand you like having the most up to date demographics for the city in the lead paragraph. So do I. However, don't you find it odd that the city itself doesn't recognize the 2006 statistic? Additionally, having this value leads to other problems. In the demographics section and citybox, other statistics are quoted: racial makeup, household data, and metro area population to name a few. Since the MONEY Magazine article does not have these values, we are left with a date/data miss-match. I'm trying to find consensus on whether or not it's even proper to quote non-census bureau demographics so we can come to some agreement on this issue. Thanks, Brien Clark 04:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Annex11-06.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Annex11-06.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bear4.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bear4.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 12:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how to get an article semi-protected

You can't protect an article yourself. If you add the template, it's just a template, it just looks pretty. If you want to have an article protected or semi-protected, you have to make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Peace, — coelacan — 07:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk

I left a message for you here: Talk:University of California, Riverside#New UCR specific Template --Dynaflow 02:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University Village, Riverside, California

University Village, Riverside, California has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt the subject might not be notable enough for an article. Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright status of Robert D. Grey

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Robert D. Grey. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/2007/jun26.html in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
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) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Robert D. Grey with a link to where we can find that note;
  • If you own the copyright to the material: 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 the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Robert D. Grey with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Robert D. Grey saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you want to edit constructively, take a look at the welcome page. Thank you. Haemo 07:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Blocked for sockpuppetry

Given the nature of the comments by User:LA Editor at Talk:Los Angeles, California, the timing of the creation of the account (created about one minute after the second reversion of your edit to Los Angeles, California), and the nature of that account's edits (somehow stumbled upon and decided to revert to your revision of the article), it is too much of a coincidence to assume that this was an independent editor. As a result, I've blocked you indefinitely for sockpuppetry (i.e., using a throwaway account to avoid 3RR). However, you have the opportunity to explain yourself here, if you so desire. --Kinu t/c 07:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

From your e-mail: I did create a new account, although it was intended specifically for articles based on a certain subject-as I use the ‘college watch’ account as a general editing account.
I don't buy your explanation as to why you created the account, as you had no problem editing Los Angeles, California in the first place; indeed, you have multiple times per your contribution history. The concern here is that it looks like you created this other account to avoid WP:3RR, and attempted to mask the nature of the account by agreeing with yourself on the talk page. You used another account in what appears to be an attempt to sway consensus. This is in violation of WP:SOCK.
Note that you can still edit this page; you are welcome to place an {{unblock}} request if you feel that my block was unjustified. However, given what I see above, I would come up with a stronger defense. --Kinu t/c 07:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Unblock

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Can you please reduce the punishment from an indefinite block to a 24 hour period as per the 3 revert 1st offense clause? I was honestly frustrated by the inaccurate estimates of population content in the Los Angeles City page, and I did correctly post the official U.S. Census data and had a corresponding discussion page. I do like to contribute as a hobby, and I hope you could at least be more lenient on this matter."

Decline reason: "I am not persuaded that you understand why what you did was wrong, and that you will not to it again. — Sandstein 09:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

You are not blocked for 3RR. You are blocked for using multiple accounts in an abusive manner. Why should we assume you wil not continue such abuse after an eventual unblock? Sandstein 08:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


  • As an observer, while I've known CW to often take questionable editorial stances, usually expressed with a faulty command of the English language, and while I'm sure he knows sockpuppeting is wrong as a general principle, I haven't seen evidence that he has been personally abusive of anyone in this case. He's contributed some great pictures to the project and on their merit I think his block should be reduced. However, I leave it up to you guys. Best regards to all, Ameriquedialectics 23:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Amerique for the kind feedback. I was actually going to run down and take some more photos of UCLA, Cal State L.A. and UCR for the Wiki college pages. I also have gigabytes of the renovated Getty Museum that I still need to add. Hopefully if the block gets lifted I can post the new content. College Watch 01:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've contacted the blocking admin and Sandstein who declined the first request. In the meantime please bear with us. Pascal.Tesson 03:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe an unblock is reasonable if and only if College Watch understands the reason for the first block. College Watch, given the dialogue on this page and that sent to me via e-mail, you seems to think this block is for breaching 3RR... no, it is not so much for the use of sockpuppetry for avoiding a 3RR violation as it is for the use of sockpuppetry to post false support for your position (i.e., agreeing with yourself) in an attempt to make a consensus appear to exist when there really was none. You do have positive contributions, so if you can reasonably convey that what you did was an unacceptable breach of Wikipedia policies and a case of very poor judgment that won't happen again, I would not be averse to a "second chance" unblock at another administrator's discretion. --Kinu t/c 04:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Well said. While I am inclined to give you a second chance, I do think the incident that resulted in the block is a serious one. Tradition on Wikipedia has always been to be forgiving for editors who have made mistakes but provided they understand the rules of the game and accept them. Sandstein's earlier question remains pertinent: can we trust that you will not resort to the same abuse if your account is unblocked? Pascal.Tesson 04:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your open mindedness and responses. I do indeed know that the reason for the block was when a violation occurred after creation and a posting of a second account. I did truly intend to create a new account for Los Angeles/Southern California only issues by creating ‘LA Editor’, although I expressed poor judgment when I posted a response to my own primary account in the discussion forum thread created with ‘College Watch’ (which portrayed a false consensus). Although I would like to honestly state that the creation of ‘LA editor’ was not intended to evade the 3 revert rule. I was unaware that it existed; as I have never reverted 3 times in a row for any of my past contributions. Since the infraction, I have recently reviewed all the Wikipedia policies and will diligently adhere to all of them in any possible future use. I also understand that if the request is granted that all rules and regulations must be strictly followed as there will be no tolerance for using Wikipeida without adherence to these highly regarded ethical standards. I also wanted to close in the fact that I have been using Wikipedia since 2003, and have watched it grow from a mere 57,000+ articles to nearly 2 million and really appreciated all the hard work from everyone (content creators, volunteers, and administrators) and understand the importance of keeping a very low tolerance for abusers and keeping integrity for Wikipedia’s content high.

Regards, College Watch 05:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'd still like to wait a bit for Sandstein's response (assuming he's around) before proceeding with the unblock. I'm also not too keen on unblocking the alternate account: alternate accounts are usually acceptable provided the user pages of the two accounts are clearly marked as such. Under the circumstances, however, I think it would be best to forget about the LA Editor account and if you still do want an alternate account, I suggest choosing an unambiguous name like User:College Watch (LA). Pascal.Tesson 05:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Pascal Tesson that giving this user a second chance is an acceptable risk, since he seems to understand what the problem was, and that the sockpuppet account should remain blocked. In fact I think it would be best if this user would restrict himself to one account for the time being; this will allow us to detect any possible future infractions more readily. Sandstein 09:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

See above.

Request handled by: Pascal.Tesson 16:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks All College Watch 04:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UCR Endowment

Replied on my talk page as the issues involved may be substantial enough to merit keeping discussion on one page. Ameriquedialectics 19:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cowschwitz.... are you really sure about the title.

Hi, just came across the Cowschwitz article. Now whether the cattle ranch is notable is debatable; I did find a few references to it, but the title of the article is definitely going to be a Neutral point of view problem FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cowschwitz again

Perhaps if you moved the article to the actual title of the ranch and then we can see if the article subject is notable? But the article at Cowscwitz really shouldn't be at that title one way or the other. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think you have enough material to create an article on the company or the ranch, and if you think it might pass WP:N - and I can only go on a few Internet references, so I honestly don't know if it will- you could do that.
But even having a redirect to the new article from Cowschwitz is problematic. I am not arguing the ranch hasn't been nicknamed as Cowschwitz, but it does seem to be a point of view reference and more importantly, there is no particular reason that the redirect should point to an article about that ranch, as that joke - for lack of a better word - isn't unique. I have heard particular abbatoirs in my neck of the woods being referred to as Cowschwitz. (Personal opinion is that people shouldn't, but they do). Whether the nickname should be mentioned in the new article would depend on there being reliable sources that the ranch is frequently referred to as such. Blog entries alone wouldn't be enough.
My advice to you is to put a db-author template on the Cowschwitz article - there haven't been many substantial edits, so that should work - and start the new article with good sourcing for the material. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
(replying) But it would still fail WP:NAME. Really, I can't see the article being allowed to stay at the current name. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Cowschwitz

An editor has nominated Cowschwitz, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowschwitz and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Westside (Los Angeles County)

We need Sources for the above article. Can you help. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)