User talk:ImGz/Archive08

Tau Gamma Phi
Dear ImGz

I am very angered and disappointed with what you did to my fraternity's page the Tau Gamma Phi. You totally changed and re-wrote it to suit your taste. With disregard to the hours of work that I spent not to say months researching and writing those contents. What will you feel if I edited and re-wrote your articles here and totally put words there that will make you feel offended? I know you will think that it's vandalism...but isn't that what you did to our page? Isn't it a form of self-gratifying and over-righteous vandalism?

Why don't you stick to your pages and leave other orgs alone. Our page have been here for a while and Wikipedia doesn't even edit us like what you did...and then suddenly here you are feeling like you have the power over all articles here in wiki and just started chopping our article like a crazy newspaper editor. I appreciate it if you give respect to other people's articles. We have also rights to be heard and known. We are not grand standing, but just stating the facts. What is written in our pages is backed up by references and facts. We don't invent these things.

Thank you for you consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TriskelionTarantula (talk • contribs) 18:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:V and WP:RS, the information that was removed did not have sources. Also please read over what wikipedia is not. Whether you worked hard on the material or not is not relevant, whether it is sourced or not is. Content on wikipedia needs to be sourced, factual, and not written in a way that is an advertisement. --ImGz ( t/c ) 18:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Phi Kappa Phi
Hi!

User:Iridescent recommended you to look over a dispute on our talk:Phi Kappa Phi page and to look over the content of the the primary Phi Kappa Phi page. We have submitted a MedCab request here yesterday, so if you think we should wait that out first, I understand. You can find the primary dispute here. The debate also has implications for the citation and wording of claims in the WP:LEDE of the Phi Beta Kappa page about it being "the most prestigious" honor society (and any comparative claims made on any honor society page). Thank you. --Lhakthong (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I should be able to check this out sometime tonight or tomorrow, chances are MedCab won't get to it before then.. --ImGz ( t/c ) 21:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Whenever it's convenient for you. No rush. --Lhakthong (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, sorry I wasn't able to get to it last night, I was studying for finals. I will get to it tonight however. --ImGz ( t/c ) 15:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

E-romance and copyvio
Hi ImGz. I've been digging in more detail into User:E-romance's contributions, and found that a lot of the book articles she created were copied verbatim from fantastic fiction. I suspect several more were copied from the back cover of the book, but I don't have those books and can't prove it. I've also found paragraphs in a few of the author articles that are copied from their publishers' websites (although those were cited so at least easy to find the violation). I'm cleaning up as much as I can right now and deleting the articles that aren't salvageable. I'd appreciate it if you could keep aware of this new problem too. Karanacs (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured this was the case, thanks for looking over it. I'll keep my eyes open. --ImGz ( t/c ) 23:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Alpha Pi Lambda
I think you should report to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if the user still re-add the POV version. I've already reverted twice and quite sleepy to follow up on the article (it's almost midnight in my part of the world).-- Lenticel ( talk ) 15:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Betsy Boze
Thanks for your help on the Betsy Boze article. I was just made aware a duplicate article was created under Betsy vogel and placed a speedy deletion tag on it, but won't be surprised if the same crew that's been constantly whitewashing the Betsy Boze article removes the tag. Just a heads up. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I've had the article on my watchlist for quite some time so I can't say I'm surprised at the latest turn of events, I'll try to keep my eyes on it. --ImGz ( t/c ) 02:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a question/ correction
Thank you for your extensive and appropriate edits that you made to the Wikipedia page about me. I appreciate the time and effort that goes into your work. I'm not sure why you removed the employment section, however, since I am still employed by Kent State University, although I am working out of DC right now. It isn't a big deal, and I defer to your judgment, but it is inaccurate.

The question: Can you or some group of editors please edit this to a sufficiently NPOV so that the tag can be removed? Recent changes take it that direction, but it apparently still needs some rewriting.

Thanks

BVBoze (talk) Betsy —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC).

Earle Mack School of Law
Drexel Law's class of 2012 GPA and LSAT are notable for their increase since the inaugural class. The current LSAT score exceeds some older Philadelphia schools. I'm surprised that you don't think this is of interest to people. Moreover, what does accreditation have to do with it, other than to cement the inaugural class's numbers as generally notable? Why does it automatically mean subsequent classes are to be ignored? Go to another law school's page (Temple), and tell me why it's important to note the Class of 2010's LSAT score. What happened that year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.25.133.221 (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First off read what wikipedia is not, particularly the part that says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. So *wow* the GPA and LSAT scores have improved since the first class ok not really since it's expected, but why is the information notable? No Philly papers have mentioned it, as far as I can see no scholarly sources have pondered upon it. It's just a trivial fact. Such as 2011's GPA and LSAT score, and 2013, and 2014, ad nauseum. The first numbers are notable because it was the first class, when Drexel gets ABA accred that class year will be notable because more likely than not it will be reported upon and the increase in both the GPA and LSAT scores will be noted. Back to what wikipedia is not - not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ok sure yeah Temple might mention the 2010 LSAT scores but Temple's law school isn't a Good Article, whereas Drexel's is. This means that it is well written and contains the information it should, and isn't cluttered with non-essential info (eg. every years GPA and LSAT score, wiki isn't a law school index). Now onto the "The current LSAT score exceeds some older Philadelphia schools" what source do you have, independent of Drexel, that says that? Because that is notable. Other than that limit the article to information that is notable, don't pack the article (and remove info and sources) with statistics that are more appropriate for the 'why should you come here' section of the law school website. --ImGz ( t/c ) 21:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Cystic fibrosis FAR
nominated Cystic fibrosis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)