User talk:Finelinebilly

Welcome!
Hello, Finelinebilly, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on Soren1997 (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)|my talk page]], or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

ES
Posted on my talkpage, but let me repost here. ":V,
 * Point taken, and I apologize for offending you. The Extension School is indeed the only school at Harvard with an open-enrollment (and until recently: relatively open-admissions) process. It is what really distinguishes the school, and should be in the lead per WP:LEAD. It's Harvard's way of opening its education to the public; the open-enrollment aspect should be celebrated!
 * Cheers,
 * &Lambda; u α (Operibus anteire) 21:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)"
 * The previous lead wasn't all that helpful if you ask me, so I referred to the school's own description of itself. Hopefully, that's a solution we all can agree on.
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 22:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry- just saw your message, but apparently we agree the previous description didn't work! :)
 * The reason I would insist on having that aspect in the lead is because that's more or less the school's primary mission: offering courses to the general public. Degrees are almost an afterthought (~3% of those who have enrolled since 1950 proceeded to get degrees, as the article states). Therefore, we can talk about the academics and admissions later on in the article.
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 22:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi V,
 * Yes, oddly, most of Wikipedia's conversations are generally civil, and I can attest to that having been here for 6 years now. There are times when things go south, but that's rather rare.
 * I agree, we should probably mention that in the intro, and will get to it by tomorrow. I will be sure to mention that degree programs are not open, and have requirements.
 * If you are still in Boston, I hope you're surviving the heat! From one H alum to a soon-to-be alum (even if you are a freshman- time flies!), I sure don't miss Boston's summers.
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 22:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, what say you if we have this:
 * Harvard University Extension School, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is one of thirteen schools of Harvard University, offering open-enrollment and continuing education courses in 60 fields. The school also offers undergraduate and graduate degree programmes, which require certain academic perquisites and admission is subject to a strict application process.
 * Feel free to discuss reformatting changes here, before we can go live with it.
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 03:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(reset indent) Great, the header is now live. Yeah- I did notice quite a bit of improvement (mostly yours), but I wanted to include the open-enrollment policy in the intro because I think it might encourage more people to give the school a chance if they land on this page for whatever reason. It's one of Harvard's greatest contributions to the community and the general public. And now, we also have EdX, which is just fantastic! I knew they were some requirements for the degree program, but I didn't realize they were this strict. To be honest with you, I interacted with only two extension students while in College. Unfortunately, both experiences were somewhat negative. Both blokes pretended to be College students (lying about living in pfoho, for instance). We were only tipped off when we couldn't find them on the College's facebook.college directory. And no, Abe Liu was not one of them :) In any case, glad we worked it out. The intro looks good now. Good luck in your studies! Before long, you'll be in Tercentenary Theatre in a cap and gown. Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 01:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out with the ES article. I have been locked in an edit war with socks and others trying to remove substantial parts of the consensus intro. I had to restore to the intro above more than three times.
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 02:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:ExtensionFlag.png
Thanks for uploading File:ExtensionFlag.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Harvard Extension School page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=633371960 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F633371960%7CHarvard Extension School%5D%5D Ask for help])

Harvard Extension School
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Could you share with me the source of your info about HES' low graduation rate? I think that information is notable and belongs in the article. Steeletrap (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The graduation information is in the body of the article (and cited) in the "History" section. The original source is Dean Michael Shinagel's book entitled "The Gates Unbarred." Similar statistics (3%, but this figure includes degrees AND certificates) are presented at HES's info sessions, which can be viewed on YouTube (WP will not allow me to post the link but the most recent info session for 2013-2014 presents the stat at the 4:15 mark). Also contained in the body of the article all the other specific information regarding admissions as well as open-enrollment courses. Cheers!Finelinebilly (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't you think this meager graduate rate indicates that there are little admission standards? I have not heard of a traditional university--much less an elite one--with such a lower graduate rate. Steeletrap (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is much confusion and misinformation surrounding HES, and I would be happy to disabuse you of any of this misinformation. So please ask away! First, I think you are comparing apples to oranges. HES's low graduation rate isn't counting people who were accepted to the degree programs and then dropped out. The rate constitutes the percentage of people who took that first course and went on to earn degrees and certificates. Low graduation rates might indicate low admission standards at traditional universities, but remember that Extension was designed for (and continues to serve) non-traditional students. That's why the application process for degree programs is so vastly different from that of Harvard College or any other elite university. The average age of HES students is 33 years old, so traditional indicators of academic success such as SAT scores and teenage Model U.N. victories were a lifetime ago for these applicants. Instead of being selective on the front end, HES invites anyone to take those first three permission courses and then lets students who are not capable of meeting the academic rigor winnow themselves out. As I explained previously, Expos (one of the permission courses for ALB degree candidacy) is notorious for being a gatekeeper course. Students who cannot earn the required B or better in two tries are precluded from further pursuing degree candidacy. Students who do not earn solid Bs or better in their other permission courses suffer the same fate, hence the low graduation rates. With respect to the number of folks who drop out once being admitted to the degree programs, this would be a better comparison. But I have no data. I would wager though that because the programs require so much investment up front, the dropout rates are likely very low. As an aside, Harvard College's dropout rate is 2.7%. I'd be interested to know how HC's dropout rate compares to HES admitted degree candidates. Keep the questions coming. Finelinebilly (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Admin
I am not an admin. You can become one by following the steps laid out at Requests for adminship. I'm not sure why Steeletrap has come in with such a vengeance, but I don't like his style either. --Briancua (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply
...but I tried to weigh in on the talkpage. I'd have loved to help with the edit request, but I'm afraid I don't check Wiki that often nowadays.
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 03:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Harvard Extension
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please stand back on this. You are at 3RR. This needs to be resolved on talk, but if you continue to edit war you may be blocked from WP. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  00:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Randykitty (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Institute for Social Policy and Understanding
Hello, Finelinebilly. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Dr Strauss  talk  16:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Institute for Social Policy and Understanding for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Institute for Social Policy and Understanding is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Institute for Social Policy and Understanding until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:This is the official logo for the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:This is the official logo for the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding.jpg. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Mount Laurel, New Jersey
Hello. Your recent edit to Mount Laurel, New Jersey appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Being mentioned in a Wikipedia article is not the same as having a Wikipedia article. Please discuss on the article's talk page.  Thank you.  Magnolia677 (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I've made the case for notability beyond the fact Lawrence is mentioned on the page. You've chosen to cherry pick here. Finelinebilly (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice that the policy says "most lists." Ethel Lawrence qualifies for notability under any circumstance and I am adding her to the list of notable people, with a link to the Mount Laurel Doctrine entry. Moreover, Lawrence is already named on the Mount Laurel, NJ page in the section entitled "Mount Laurel Doctrine." Finelinebilly (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
Your recent editing history at Mount Laurel, New Jersey shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''Discussing a contested edit on the talk page does not mean posting your opinion and then restoring your edit. It means opening the discussion and then waiting for consensus to form. I happen to agree with the editor who undid you that notability has not been demonstrated, but that is not why I restored the original state of the article. I have restored the status quo pending a consensus forming on whether the new material should be included.

In my opinion the sources you have added are nowhere near showing notability. One did not mention her at all, one mentioned her only in passing, and the third is a blog. Blogs are not normally accepted as reliable sources. '' Meters (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)