User talk:Anderskw

UCLA
In response to your inquiry: I've only reverted you once at History of the University of California, Los Angeles. The main reason I did this was that your edit resulted in the following text: ''The History of University of California, Los Angeles begins in 1881, with the founding of the Los Angeles of the California State Normal School. In 1919, school became the Southern Branch of the University of California.'' That's not even grammatical, much less sensible, and it left me with the distinct impression that you didn't know what you were talking about. At this point, I would advise you to discuss this change at Talk:History of the University of California, Los Angeles. Best regards, Tkynerd (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Because my sweatshirt reads "UCLA BRUINS EST 1919." Because Bill Clinton said on May 20, 1994, at Pauley Pavilion, "I'm proud to be here to honor the University's 75th anniversary, ..." (Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis died that day.) Because UCLA Timeline has this entry: "1919 California Gov. William D. Stephens signs Assembly Bill 626, establishing the Southern Branch of the University of California. The Vermont Avenue campus opens on Sept. 15, offering two-year undergraduate programs to 260 Junior College students and 1,078 students in the Teachers Training program, under the direction of Ernest Carroll Moore." Because UCLA had these celebrations: "WWII PUT DAMPER ON 25TH ANNIVERSARY, BUT GALA CELEBRATIONS IN '69 HIGHLIGHTED 50TH BASH" Who cares about the "history of Ariz State, SDSU, SJSU, SFSU and chico state"? Ucla90024 (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In fairness, none of those is a reliable source except possibly the UCLA Timeline, which would require a cite. --Tkynerd (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean the University's 75th Anniversary celebration is not reliable? The 50th anniversary? Just like you have your birthday party is not reliable? Bill Clinton was invited to speak for the fun of it and the White House would publish his speech? When the Governor signed the bill to make UCLA was not reliable? :) Ucla90024 (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you follow the link I posted? It would help you understand what I was talking about. To answer your questions, none of those things in itself is a reliable source. --Tkynerd (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

re:UCLA
I understand that the state normal school was established in 1881, but UCLA, in its present form, was not established as part of the University of California until 1919. This date is the most accurate "establishment date." I'm not denying the fact that UCLA's origins can be traced back to its roots as a normal school, but to say that UCLA existed before 1919 is not only misleading, but also patently incorrect. The origins of UCLA, as a normal school, are still in the text of the article, but the date in the infobox is (and always should be) the year that the normal school became a part of the University of California. This is the date that UCLA recognize and it is also the date that students, alumni, faculty, and staff are familiar with. — Ł ittle Ä lien  ¹8²  03:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What that guy said. I looked at previous the edit summary and knew I needed to revert it! Lazylaces (Talk to me 17:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)