User talk:GentlePear35

March 2024
Please do not delete up to date and complete information, and introduce what appears to be outdated and not properly sourced information, as you did to Michigan State University College of Law and Michigan State Law Review. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been corrected and reverted. If you plan to reintroduce your edits, specially considering the Washington and Lee 2022 source cited in the articles, discuss the changes on the articles’ talk pages before making them again. Regardless of your talk page entries, improper reintroduction of your edits may be interpreted as repeated vandalism and can lead to being blocked from editing. Also, considering your edit history, if you have a WP:CONFLICT regarding Michigan State University College of Law and Michigan State Law Review you should comply with WP:COIEDIT specially as to disclosure, talk page proposed changes, and being strongly discouraged from editing directly Michigan State University College of Law and its law review. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear Quaerens-veritatem,
 * Thank you for your diligence in maintaining the accuracy of Wikipedia articles. I appreciate your commitment to ensuring that information is up-to-date and properly sourced.
 * I acknowledge your concerns regarding the edits made to the Michigan State University College of Law and Michigan State Law Review pages. However, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that my edits constitute vandalism.
 * My intent in revising the content was to improve clarity and accuracy, particularly in light of the Washington and Lee 2022 source cited. I recognize the importance of discussing proposed changes on the articles’ talk pages, and I am open to constructive dialogue to ensure the integrity of the information presented.
 * Regarding your mention of WP:COIEDIT, I assure you that I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I am dedicated to contributing accurate information to Wikipedia.
 * In our collaborative efforts, it is crucial for all contributors to maintain transparency and avoid any potential conflicts of interest. As such, I encourage us both to approach edits with a clear understanding of our affiliations and to work together to achieve the most balanced and accurate representation of information.
 * If you have specific concerns or suggestions regarding the content, I welcome your input. GentlePear35 (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you GentlePear35 for your response and informing me that your edit was not intended vandalism.
 * You may note the Washington and Lee journal survey does not rank “flagship” journals, an editor has to count them separately, which may be deemed WP:OR. I have left the “flagship” rank although the rank originally supplied by Washington and Lee is more enlightening by itself as many “secondary” law school journals outrank “flagships”.
 * As a new editor, please be careful with removal of content. Also, specially when removing content, it would help if you adequately explaining why you removed the content in your edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit.
 * Regarding WP:CONFLICT, I appreciate that you are committed to adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Please note that contributing accurate information to Wikipedia may be assumed but, as a reminder, such editors must comply with WP:COIEDIT including making disclosure of the interest (see, WP:DISCLOSE), noting the Wikipedia strong discouragement from editing affected articles directly, and the allowance to propose changes on talk pages and seek consensus for any change.
 * If you haven’t done so already, you might take a look at the welcome page, which also provides further information about contributing constructively. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk.
 * Thank you in advance for your work to achieve balanced, accurate, and complete information in the encyclopedia while complying with Wikipedia’s precepts and particular editing rules.
 * Regards, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear Quaerens-veritatem,
 * Thank you for your detailed response and for providing additional context regarding the rankings and the Washington and Lee journal survey. I understand your perspective on retaining the "flagship" designation, especially considering the nuances of the rankings. However, I respectfully propose that you remove the quotes around "flagship" to better reflect the ranking's validity and prevent any potential edit wars. This adjustment could contribute to a more accurate representation of the information. The flagship designation is a valid variable in differentiating between different types of law review publications. Please see Law Review, which states "membership and editorial positions on law journals, especially flagship law reviews, is competitive and traditionally confers honor and prestige."
 * In addition, the value of non-flagship rankings is that it avoids counting institution-based journals multiple times. For example, Yale has six equivalents (3, 26, 27, 47, 75, 100) of journals within the top 100, Harvard has eight equivalents (1, 32, 45, 54, 56, 73, 89, 92; see W&L Law Journal Rankings) when not correcting for flagship journals. Yale is a great law school, but insisting on "general" rankings gives clarity when comparing law reviews between institutions. A rough estimate is that the top 3 schools (H, Y, S) collectively have 20% of the top 100 rankings.
 * Thank you once again for your dedication to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia articles. I look forward to continued collaboration in our efforts to provide balanced, accurate, and comprehensive information to Wikipedia users.
 * Best regards,
 * GentlePear35 GentlePear35 (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello GentlePear35.
 * Although others use quotation marks (See, Student-Edited Journals), I will at this time agree with your comment regarding quotation marks around the words, law review, and have deleted the marks. I understand your viewpoint regarding non-flagship journals although I must stand on the side of Washington and Lee as their ranking, and the point, is to recognize which journals are the most cited no matter the origin. Although counting flagship reviews involves WP:NOR I will let that rest for now.
 * I appreciate your efforts and let me know if I can be of assistance.
 * Kind regards, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)