User:MiamiDolphins3/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! BD2412 T 23:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Good edits on U of M Strike section
Your adding "alledged" to both my edit and the one regarding the sprinklers were good calls. It's nice to have someone proofreading. Lawyer2b 23:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits on UM Strike
Please use discussion page to talk about editing. 69.180.103.161 23:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved this sentence here so we can discuss it:

"Despite the severity of the allegations, however, the vast majority of UM's custodial workers--an estimated 80 percent--have refused to honor the strike and have continued working."

First, who has done this estimation? Second, who is to decide that these workers have "refused to" honor the strike, as opposed to "are afraid to" honor the strike. Both claims strike me as POV. Third, was the percentage different before and after the wage increase? That seems relevant. 69.180.103.161 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Good question on the source of the estimation; at the very least it should be identified. I can see your point regarding the POV of either "refused to" or "are afraid to". I think a good compromise would be to simply say "are not striking and continue to work". I don't know about any percentage changes until I see the sources of the information. Lawyer2b 01:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

lawyer2b, I think your last edit took care of the problems. If anyone comes across information on the percentages of workers striking before vs. after the wage increases, please list it here. Also, if anyone comes across conflicting information on the number of workers striking, please note it as well. It may be clear now, but earlier on, the claims of UNICCO vs. SEIU were rather different. 69.180.103.161 12:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Source for percentage of striking workers
My source for the 75 percent of custodians continuing to work is the April 12, 2006 open letter from President Shalala. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that, but would be happy to look at other estimates if they arise elsewhere. I would suspect the university is in the best position to provide that data, however. MiamiDolphins3 02:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of lawyer2b's point, on the article discussion page? S/he wrote: "1) While I think it's probably true the strike has had minimal impact on custodial services at the university, it's not common knowledge what percentage capacity a custodial workforce can lose before it significantly impacts its performance. Since Shalala's letter only mentions a statistic and doesn't say anything regarding its impact on custodial services, I don't think that inference should be mentioned without further support." I agree, so will remove that inference for the time being.

position of strike reference in main article
Dear MiamiDolphins3, I do feel that this should remain its own subsection for a while. After all, there are still many issues to be dealt with. If you think that the seventh-floor crew controversy, long over, deserves an entire subsection, then you can surely understand why I and many colleagues feel that the 2006 strike should continue to have its own subsection. Otherwise, it's hard to find unless you already know to look for it. Let's keep the visibility for the time being. (Keep in mind the workers' recent slogan: "We're not invisible.") Otherwise, I think you've been doing good work on many edits. Thanks! 69.180.103.161 12:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. I agree with your point, and I think your revision on the page is a good one.  Also, I did notice that there is some bizarre page format problem on the strike page today, and I'm working to get that fixed for us.  MiamiDolphins3 17:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits: nice job! 69.180.103.161 01:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Image of the U Miami campus
Hi there, you put back the copyrighted image Image:UMiamiLakeOsceola.jpg in the article on the University of Miami. Per the image use policy that wasn't a great idea. Wikipedia aims to be the FREE encyclopedia, so free images are preferable over copyrighted material, and for that particular picture of campus a fair use claim is hard to make, even more so since there exists a free equivalent.

Yes, everyone will agree that the professional picture is "nicer" than the replacement Image:UofMiamiLakeOsceola.jpg. However Wikipedia is not a copyright violation repository. Dr Zak 11:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was not the source for the photo you reference. Looks like it comes from some UM recruitment material, according to the original source documentation.  I definitely agree with you that the old photo is vastly preferable to the new one that is in there now.  Just want to make sure you are 100 percent sure that it needs to come down for copyright purposes, and I've left you a question about this on your userpage.  In the meantime, I have left your new photo in place.  But if the old one can be used, it should be.  Thanks.  MiamiDolphins3 01:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on June 9 2006 (UTC) to Drew Rosenhaus
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. William M. Connolley 19:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As a matter of explanation, I reported this 3rr violation originally, as a result of repeated insertions of an unverified and unencyclopedic paragraph inserted to the article. The disputed content was moved to the talk page, where, frankly, I think it should remain.  MiamiDolphins3

UM strike article
Nice job with recent edits. Hopefully, this Derek Jeter fan will either give up or nominate it a third time, which could result in his/her suspension from editorship. Exhausting, really, making us spin our wheels like this. Thanks for keeping an eye on the page. Cheers, Universitytruth 16:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll second that - kudos! BD2412  T 16:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. I think it's an exceptionally well done article, and, obviously, a lot of us worked hard on it.  It was a nice example of what wikipedia writing collaboration should be, and we should be proud of it. MiamiDolphins3 21:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Music article usage
Hello MD3. I've noticed that in several music articles you've put all the song titles in italics. This is incorrect. Song titles go in regular double quotes, album titles go in italics. Please see Wikiproject Music. Thank you. Wasted Time R 04:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct, and I've altered my practice on that. I also find a lot of albums and books not in italix, and I spend a chunk of time correcting those when I see them.  Anyway, thanks for correcting me on that.  MiamiDolphins3 21:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sebastian the Ibis
Would you happen to have any photos of him that can be contributed for the article? All I have are photos that I can take off of my friends' facebook accounts, and I don't think that's very legal. Ryulong 21:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did find a photo, however I got it directly off of the Hurricane sports website, so I don't know exactly how legal it may be. I should probably just wait until school, and try to take a picture of him if I find him on campus. Ryulong 23:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I expanded the one on there now, and I think that makes it look a little better. It's such a beautiful campus it's too bad we don't have some additional photos.  I continue to appreciate your good edits, by the way.  MiamiDolphins3 21:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Miami University/University of Miami
I can live with that wording. Seems neutral. Sorry for the confusion.
 * The wording before your deletion was better. It restated a factually supported claim.  Miami University alumni do note the age differential (as well as other unpleasant disparities) between the two Miamis.  Your claim that noting MU's advocates is boosterism is true in the sense that MU's advocates are boosting their university, but that does not mean that including their comments is boosterism in the encyclopedia. Rkevins82 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We need to incorporate MU's "boosterism", as that's an important part of the article.  Please note that many Ohioans consider the whole "Miami (Ohio)" business to be POV, especially in instances where the University of Miami receives no such disclaiming tag (i.e. Miami (FL) ).  This disclaimer appears to us to diminish the importance of Miami University, giving the Univ. of Miami credentials at Miami U.'s expense. -- SwissCelt 14:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am very comfortable with both articles at this point. Glad everything got straightened out.  MiamiDolphins3 21:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Truce?
My apologies, MiamiDolphins3. I've been acting against the best interests of this encyclopedia. As I just noted in Talk:Miami University, I do actually have quite a bit of respect for the University of Miami. However, I don't let that detract from the equal respect I have for Miami University, and I don't want anyone else to disparage that wonderful institution in the hills of Southwestern Ohio, either. Can we call a truce here? Together, I think we can add quite a bit to both articles. -- SwissCelt 19:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, no problem. I know this can sometimes be pretty aggravating.  It was kind of you to offer an apology, and it probably isn't warranted.  Keep up the good work and look forward to working with you.  MiamiDolphins3 21:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)