User talk:Cornell1890

Sphinx Head Society
I've cleaned up the article by removing some red links and NN-children of famous cornellians, and making a bunch of other changes, but it needs a lot of sources to prove these folks where in the society, and I'd kill out any speculation that isn't cited. That kind of thing doesn't help its case for being save. I'd find those sources quickly. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Per your nomination, 13 May, 2008, I am commencing a Good Article review. Apologies for the length of time, but reviewers are in short supply. You may want to watch the review page over the next few days. Because of a bit of an administrative snafu, some editors have already commented on the content of the article and their commentary is in a number of places:
 * The article talk page
 * Sphinx Head was removed from the nomination in an out-of-process manner.
 * Good article reassessment
 * Yes, it is odd that the article status is being reassessed when the review has barely commenced, but that is an oddity arising from the administrative mixup.


 * There is a new review process proposal currently being evaluated by Good article project participants where a number of aspects of reviewing articles merge into a single pipeline, an "open review." Essentially,the article evaluation is automatically on hold for at least three days, permitting collaboration, mentoring, gathering of second opinions and the like; the lead reviewer, myself in this case, may extend this review period to ensure an adequate review. While this is not the offical process yet, I will provisionally try it with this review. The earliest date that I might close this review would be 16:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC). Until that time, please feel free to undertake improvements and encourage others to do so. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Closed the review. Status, fail. Thank you for pulling the article out of AfD last December. As discussed on review page, there's still a lot of work to be done. I do want you to know that if you feel that I've dealt with this article unfairly, you can bring the matter to Good Article Review page and they will be a patient audience for your concerns. Thank you for introducing me to this rather mysterious aspect of Cornellian culture. Take care and happy editing. Gosgood (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Response to Request for Help
There are at least 26 33 more Sphinx Head alumni who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. Your database is somewhat inaccurate and may not include some of these names, although they were indeed members. I am potentially willing to help you with the page if it survives the deletion review. Cornell2010 (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you may have me mistaken for someone else. Cornell2010 (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I know who you mean. There is no such thing as "low profile" on Wikipedia. Now that your page is created, it will immediately begin being indexed by Google and many other sites. The longer it stays, the more Google hits it will get, the more Wikipedia clones will duplicate it, etc. Cornell2010 (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cornell Wikipedia Meetup?
I will be attending Reunion on June 6-8, and I thought we could organize a Wikipedia gathering. Perhaps immediately following the Quill and Dagger and Sphinx Head breakfasts on Sunday morning. Are you interested? Racepacket (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet stupidity
Hi Cornell1890, I see you have been falsely labled as a sockpuppet like I have, I fully agree with your points on the "collegiate secret society page" the article now posted- to broad and not acceptable. I left some additional comments on the talk page of that article- you may like to respondSchooldoc (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One should note that checkuser has shown to be one of the twenty-odd socks used by  for serial hoaxing and AfD vote stacking: Requests for checkuser/Case/Societyfinalclubs.  --Kralizec! (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion Peer Review
Hello. You would be interested in participating in the peer review of the Priory of Sion article? --Loremaster (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Response to request to refrain from editing Sphinx Head article
Hello, thanks for your message. I'm not aware of any vandalism war between the Quill and Dagger and Sphinx head pages (though the assertion does bring back some strong Ithaca memories) as I'm not an editor on the former page. However, whatever contretemps might lie between editors on the two pages, it should not prohibit good faith edits from those not involved in the dispute. Otherwise, both pages remain strangely "locked" to edits except from those who assert a degree of ownership inimical to the WP project. As long as edits are productive and verifiable, they should stay. If you believe the page should have a degree of official protection, the formal WP administrative channels provide varying degrees of protection, though of course it is exceedingly rare to fully lock down a page from edits; even the Dick Cheney and Barack Obama articles, targets of far more contentious editing than those of Cornell societies, remain only semi-protected. Truth be told, I fail to see how listing the date and fuller sense of the NYT attribution might be considered vandalism in any sense. I continue to restore the date because it provides historical context to the Times' eighty year-old statement. It's akin to the difference between "The federal government believes that baseball should be 'exempt from anti-trust regulations'" and "In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, held that baseball, 'not trade in the traditional sense of the word,' was exempt from anti-trust regulations." Clearly, the latter helpfully assigns an agent and provides a historical context. Thanks much. --Vaudedoc (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket
For your information, four University of Miami editors have started Requests for comment/Racepacket. Racepacket (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Kappa Alpha
i agree with your edit to the CU page. KA is no different from the Sigma Phi Society. i look forward to seeing the Nieuwendyk evidence Cornell2010 (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society
*Note: I found the below comment inappropriately placed on your talk page and moved it here. Voceditenore (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding where you are coming from. Cmaga is an alumni of the organization. I am its current Dean, not a "sock puppet." Whether in favor of it or against it, the Irving Literary Society is a historic organization. While it now does not have the same presence as it once did does not mean it is not in existence. No one is trying to self-promote any "newly formed" group. If Phi Kappa Psi is what you are trying to talk about, Phi Kappa Psi is a very old Fraternity at Cornell tracing back to the late 1800's, and the Irving Literary Society operates under it. This is in no way being hidden by the article. Whether the society has a large presence on campus now is irrelevant to the descriptive historical subject of the page. It is footnoted, so if you want to contest it, you should first find the cited works and read them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadem (talk • contribs) 02:44, 30 April 2010

File copyright problem with File:Lieutenant General John M. Paxton, Jr.jpeg.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Lieutenant General John M. Paxton, Jr.jpeg.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Sphinx Head Tomb.JPG missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Sphinx Head Tomb.JPG

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Emblem - ca 1891 (1).jpg


The file File:Emblem - ca 1891 (1).jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)