User talk:Madcoverboy/Archive 3

northwestern introduction
Thanks for all your edits. Can you change "In 2007, the university was..." into present tense and perhaps change 2007 to "today"? It sounds like the university was reorganized just last year. I agree that most of the rankings are not verifiable, but I think perhaps Kellogg and Medill should stay on there. Deen Gu (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

NU Arch Image
I would actually like a more zoomed out shot of the arch, so people would know what the surrounding area looks like. What do you think? Deen Gu (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: MIT
Hi there -- I'll help out in the PR when I get the chance (which should be soon). I recommend you ask for Karanacs' help as well. She has been instrumental in getting most of the Texas A&M-related articles to FA status. She has also helped get other articles become featured too. Good luck! BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm flying from California to Florida tonight, so I won't be able to do it right now. (just popping in really quick for email)  Anyways, I'll take a look at it when I'm settled back in.  Do you know what happened to NoeticSage?  NoeticSage disappeared some months ago and I haven't found someone else to take over some of the WP:UNI stuff.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  contribs  19:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, I'd be glad to help with the PR and will take a look in a day or two. Regards, Kevin Forsyth (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Lentower for the reply to your query. Lentower (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Without extensively reading the article, I must say that the article has come a LONG way since FAC in Jan 2007. It looks great!  But "looking great" isn't the only thing required for it to pass FA ;)  I don't have a chance to read it closely right now, but will try to in the near future.  If Peer Review is closed at that time, I'll just leave comments on your talk page.  Cheers, -Bluedog423Talk 19:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invite. You've sapped all the life out of me for now, but I can't promise I won't come home drunk at some point this weekend and get involved. :) --Elred (talk) 04:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Set up Don Stevenson (musician) page
...and redirectec "Don Stevenson" to Don Stevenson (musician) from Moby Grape. Forgot to clear with you first, since you hadn't seen much significance in my original attempt to set up a page for Don Stevenson. Could you check the Don Stevenson (musician) page and see if sufficient individual significance has been demonstrated. Many thanks in advance.

Dreadarthur (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

High School Musical
I noticed the article you put up for deletion was up there twice, so I tried to remove the duplicate; did I remove the whole thing? If so, sorry. Beemer 69  chitchat  22:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

MIT "T" field experiment
Thanks for your note. I'd be glad to help out, although I am not a jurist. I will be glad to contribute as I can do reasonably. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority v. Anderson. It's also a hugely sensitive issue, especially since the presentation slides actually leaked out I think. Best Wishes and many thanks. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be honoured and happy to do what I can, at the very least to fulfill Linus's Law at the very least. Good to be on board. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brian. We ran into an edit conflict since I was making a big edit on a slow computer and you were editing the article too, unbeknownst to me. How is it looking ? Cheers. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brian, for your kind note. It looks good so far. Well done to you too. I saw you condensed the Nohl section. That was a good idea. We lost that in the edit conflict previously. Also, I linked to NXP since Schneier's quote refers to "NXP" without any prior explanation of who they are, viz. the manufacturer of the chip set for the smartcard. Let's keep it rolling as events dictate. Detective Joe Friday (Jack Webb) said it all: "Just the facts, ..., just the facts ...". ;) Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Of tangential interest ? "Vulnerabilities in the Mifare Classic RFID system confirmed" - Heise News, UK, 20 March 2008, 13:15 ... or "Mifare manufacturer NXP files suit against security researchers" - a group of researchers at Radboud University in Nijmegen, Holland. "the suit is intended to prevent the scientists from their planned October [2008] publication of the results of their research on the poor security of the Mifare Classic chip ..." Heise news, 11 July 2008, 18:43 ... Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, one more point regarding your comment. This is all meant to be a cloudy issue and a boundary condition case challenge since basically the cat got out of the bag already in prior art in Europe and America before the Tech team did their research and implementation. Oddly enough, in such constrained conditions legally, there is paradoxically the widest latitude for opinion and leverage. I'm not 100% sure what the "T" is claiming now since it's a fait accompli. The conference where they were to present the slides has come and gone. And 99.9% of the T-riding populace can't even imagine what the engineering and math involved is like or ever use it. I guess it's like the new Batman movie: the one who can do something with it can cause potential harm as with a simple playing card, The Joker. But as you demonstrated with your inclusion of the letter from professors (which didn't include Rivest or anyone from Tech), the best one can get out of all this is restraint, which groups like EFF disdain. It's a complicated issue. "Hacking" has always been politically viewed by most governments and organisations as near anarchical behaviour. And of course a parallel issue is the published information about e-voting machines and software programs. And I might add, the New York Times with the Pentagon Papers publication. And the film "Three Days of the Condor". One can see the MBTA's point and concern about the MIFARE system and yet the EFF's philosophical point of view. Cheers. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brian. The two articles from the front page of MIT Tech newspaper, current issue, were I thought a good synopsis of the case. But you thought they were redundant. Oh well. Life goes on. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Brian. Thanks for your comments. Your points are well taken. Thanks and best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment
Here (and also, if possible, ) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     05:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO
Thanks for signing up. You may be interested in CHICAGO/leadership.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Texas Tech FAC
Hey mate, would you please strike-through your notes on the FAC that you believe have been satisfied? The thing is getting pretty unwieldy and it would help us keep things moving. Thanks.--Elred (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BOOSTER
I took a very quick look at the article, reading through it at a comfortable speed, and very carefully not checking the history to see what changes have been made... just a "zero-based" look at it as it is now... and it looks fine to me.

I do have one factual question. I objected recently to a characterization of a university as the "Nth-best public university" on the grounds that it was original research, i.e. selectively created from a list that did not break out public universities, and was told that the printed copy of the U. S. News rankings actually does contained a ranked list of public universities. If this is true... I haven't had a chance to check it personally... then I suppose "Nth-best public university" can be directly sourced... and even though I still hate it, my grounds for hating it have been undercut.

I certainly don't own a copy of the U. S. News ranking book, and I resent the time it will take to dig one out at the library, but I guess I have to do it.

Of course, U. S. News has literally dozens of lists... probably so that admissions brochure writers can always find some list in which their university is highly ranked... Dpbsmith (talk) 03:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO roles
It is not exactly clear to me what the best way to divide the responsibilities for the new coordinators who have volunteered. Here is what I think we need in terms of review coordinators:
 * 1) we need at least one person to be the peer review coordinator for WP:CHICAGO.  This person would be responsible for both WP:CHIR, which is for internal peer reviews within the project and WP:CHIR, which are peer reviews at WP:PR and elsewhere that we should try to transclude to WP:CHIR.  I think such a person should comment on all reviews listed at either of these places and coordinate archiving of such reviews.  This person should also monitor WT:CHICAGO for articles seeking assistance and make sure the editors are aware that we now have project reviews.  In the early stages of the project this person should also comment on all discussions at WP:CHIR until we build up some momentum.
 * 2) we need at least one person to be the A-Class review coordinator for WP:CHICAGO.  This person would be responsible for WP:CHIR.  This person should comment on all reviews there and coordinate archiving of such reviews.  This person should also monitor WP:CHIR and WP:FAC because articles listed for FAC review should often come from our A-Class pool in the future.  Also articles that fail may come to our A-Class for guidance.  In the early stages of the project this person should comment on all discussions at either WP:CHIR or WP:CHIR in order to help get the momentum going for our review process.
 * 3) we need someone to monitor delistings at WP:FAR, WP:FARC, WP:FLRC, WP:GAR, and keep an eye on individual GAR discussions.  This person should keep an eye on whether all the leading editors of each article, the leading editors of each article's talk page, and the projects listed on the talk pages have been duly notified.  This will help maximize the likelihood that we find people to respond to discussion comments. Transcluding all articles to the proper locations at WP:CHIR is a must.  This person hopefully will have an interest in helping to clean up an occasional article or two as well.

Generally, discussion pages are removed immediately at WP:CHIR, but kept at WP:CHIDISCUSS for two weeks after closing. I have been attempting to do all of these things for the project myself as well as my other tasks. We have three volunteers who mentioned an interest in reviews so each of you should discuss among yourselves which coordinator you would like to be.

Two of the review coordinator respondents also listed Assessments. Within the assessment department at WP:CHIASSESS we need a few tasks handled as well.
 * 1) Assessment requests need to be responded to.
 * 2) WP:CHIQUALITY and WP:CHIPRIORITY need to be kept up to date
 * Category:Unknown-importance Chicago articles and Category:Unassessed Chicago articles need to be kept up
 * Category:Top-importance Chicago articles needs to be administered. We have made it policy to keep the Top-importance for the top .2% of all WP:CHICAGO articles.  Thus the following will be the next promotions based on the last round of voting:
 * Magnificent Mile -when the project gets to 16000 articles
 * Haymarket Riot -16500 articles
 * Daniel Burnham -17000 articles
 * Chicago River -17500 articles
 * Lake Shore Drive -18000 articles
 * Museum of Science and Industry (Chicago) -18500 articles
 * Chicago Tribune -19000 articles

The following will be considered for promotion or we may call for another vote or we may discontinue promoting altogether: Soldier Field -19500 articles
 * Sears, Roebuck and Company -20000 articles
 * Chicago school (architecture) -20500 articles
 * William Wrigley Jr.-21000articles

New candidates for Top-importance should be continually brought forth. Alternative selection methods may be considered, but currently we support or oppose inclusion on a ballot and then vote on the ballot. We should keep discussion open on this issue. Again, please discuss the division of responsibility. I am hoping to have all responsibilities assigned and be a fairly fully functional project on September 1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if I was mistaken in my interpretation of your interest. Were you not interested in being a coordinator and instead being more of a helper?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if you would like to be the peer review coordinator, please jump in at WP:CHIR. There are currently four peer reviews that are active. Jay Pritzker Pavilion is an internal review that is only seen by our project.  Chicago Midway International Airport is an external review.  Both Stevenson High School (Lincolnshire, Illinois) and Candace Parker are technically outside of the domain of WP:CHICAGO because they are outside of Cook County, Illinois.  However, people interested in the project may be interested in them.  In any case, the important part of your role is to make sure the internal reviews get addressed.  Also, I feel that since A-Class reviews need to be reviewed by two people, the peer review coordinator should comment on the A-Class reviews within the project.  This is probably more important to the success of the project than commenting on external reviews.  I will ask the A-Class coordinator to comment on internal peer reviews as well.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Jena Six
I've addressed the textual matters you posited. However, some of the things you've mentioned (what you consider tangential matters, etc.) can't be done without gutting the article. In view of the changes I have made, would you consider striking your oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

re: FPC advice
Hi Madcoverboy, To be completely honest (which is the best policy IMO) I don't think it will be a successful candidate. I doubt it will get unanimously opposed, but it's not likely to get through for three reasons. Reason 1: misalignment throughout the image (the columns are the most problematic but the tree leaves and moving people are quite bad too). Reason 2: Photomatix style HDR images, although striking, are generally frowned upon on FPC due to unrealistic colour rendition. Reason 3: As a result of the misalignments mentioned before (or perhaps your wide angle lens) the image isn't terribly sharp. Having said all that I would strongly encourage you to nominate it anyway as criticism is extremely helpful in becoming a better photographer (both in terms of motivation - i'll show them! - and in terms of finding the problems in your technique). Hope that helps --Fir0002 08:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fitchburg State College
Thank you for your comment and help with Fitchburg State College. I realize it is a at a point where all the information is mostly there, but it needs massive reorginization. Thanks again for taking time and reviewing it for me!--Found5dollar (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Kenyon College and selectivity
Regarding your recent edit to Kenyon College -- I agree that "highly selective" is somewhat subjective and I have tried to restore the article to NPOV. The term "selective," however, when applied to college admissions, actually means something relatively tangible--it is generally used to refer to colleges that have an admissions process involving several steps (interviews, etc.) and don't accept all or even close to all applicants (as opposed to schools that, for example, have rolling admissions, no interviews, and accept over 90% of applicants). This article, for example, uses the term in that sense. There is a standard rating system for ranking colleges' selectivity, the Barron Selectivity measure, that is not perfect but is enough that calling a college "selective" here is not making a subjective description, but rather objectively placing the school among a group of other schools that share the same status. This article and this article are some more random examples of the term used in this sense, to define a generally accepted group of schools. --Politizer (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Politzer is correct. You made the same edit to Luther College, but that term is standard use in how school admissions are defined - see, , and  for examples.  It has nothing to do with subjective prestige, which is why it is used on so many other college pages.  Because of this, you should probably revert the dozens of similar edits you've made to other schools. Thanks. Iulus Ascanius (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I echo the concerns related above. I strongly recommend you take this up with other editors before continuing to remove similar language from so many articles.  --ElKevbo (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As you point out there are several different indices, standards, and organizations promulgating rankings and other college information, each employing different definitions and metrics to classify institutions. Thus, to assert that Kenyon is "selective" necessarily implies either an overborad, generic definition common to the vast majority of higher education institutions (as you suggest) or a classification with the thinnest veneer or reliability and based upon sources with divergent or even incompatible definitions (US News, Barrons, Carnegie, NSF, etc) but nevertheless intended to connote eliteness. I believe that if the word is intended as the definition you propose, it is redundant as indeed the vast majority of institutions are "selective" and indeed the vast majority of even the most "selective" institutions make no mention of this in the lead of their articles. The term is entirely appropriate within a section based upon admissions information and academics, but to state it in the first sentence of the lead gives it undue weight. That Kenyon is a liberal arts institution, located in Gambier, founded in 1824, and not publicly owned or controlled are important, specific, and uncontroversial assertions. Uncritically describing it as "selective" in the lead is unspecific at best and boosterism at worst. Thus, it shouldn't be included at all in the lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I beg to differ. Selectivity is a measure of notability. It would be appropriate to perhaps mention one or more selectivity indexes (as Politzer does), but selectivity is in fact major distinguishing factor among colleges, and the vast majority are not selective. Selectivity implies that there is competition to get into the college, which of course is used in boosting a college, but then so are most of the other statistical facts listed in college articles. I thin it is appropriate to include features that distinguish particular colleges and universties in the lead: size, selectivity, location, academic specialties, religious affiliation, and history are all applicable, and all could also be perceived as boosterish. I think all should be reverted, or reverted with references given for selectivity--Natcase (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I second concerns related above by ElKevbo. You should first seek consensus before continuing to remove similar language from so many articles. What grounds do you have for doing so given that the discussion at that Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_academic_boosterism demonstrates there is no consensus and, if anything, many editors who disagree with your claims? Aren't your repeated edits to the Williams College page somewhat rude? David.Kane (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

photo
Hey mate, this photo looks a little over-processed to me. Have you put some sort of HDR or fish-eye effect on it? It's an incredible shot in an artistic sense, but it looks a little too 'tampered-with' to be encyclopedic. I think that may cause you some problems when you do the FAC. I don't know if you're a photoshop guy or not, but if you need help cleaning up images or anything let me know.--Elred (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't envy you the task of trying to summarize MIT research projects. Maybe it would be easier to list the things they aren't working on.  As a side note, one thing I've been doing on the TTU page that I think is a cool touch... I've been formatting most of our images to 1680x1050 so they are perfect resolution should someone want to use them for a widescreen desktop background.  It also helps to give the page a good sense of continuity.--Elred (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the Williams College article and taking on David.Kane. Scwalsh (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

résumés
Hi Madcoverboy.

You've linked to WP:RESUME on an AFD. There's a discussion about that essay going on at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé - you might want to join in. --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 19:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

minor edits
Hi Madcoverboy, just a quick note:

Help:Minor edit A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.

Removing mention of USNWR rankings from the Williams College lede might be a good decision, but I don't think it's at all true that it "could never be the subject of a dispute." Thanks. Npdoty (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As a previous active contributor of WP:UNI/COTF...
We are starting WP:UNI/COTM, please review the ten randomly selected nominees and vote for the articles you wish to improve. (Category:WikiProject Universities COTM candidates) The COTM will run throughout the month of December. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or comment on WT:UNI/COTM. Have a great day!  - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  21:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote
The quote was by a major magazine. It also gives a history of  trouble at the school. 68.192.45.84 (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The person who gave the quote is unknown as no author is given. The article is not written from a WP:NPOV. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,842336,00.html Zeuscgp (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

time magazine is a neutral magazine. 68.192.45.84 (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The magazine is not in question, the article is. Zeuscgp (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Toolserveraccount
Hello Madcoverboy, please send your real-name, your wikiname, your Freenode-nick (if you have one), your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to. We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 16:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A new round of Collaboration of the Month is about to begin!
Yes, it's that time! A new article has been chosen our COTM next month.

Here's something I want to try, start treating it as a peer review. Start by skimming through the article, making sure the article fits our article guidelines. Then review for content: any copyvio, notability issues, reference listings, following the Manual of Style. Again, let's make sure we stick to the objectives listed on WP:UNI/COTM. Feel free to use the talk page of the article or COTM page to reflect or express opinions on how to make this program even better. Feel free to utilize if you wish, that channel doesn't get used enough and I'm usually there if I'm near a computer.

And here's something even more radical. See if you can attract authors currently maintaining the different COTM articles to join our WikiProject and better yet, our COTM project. I found when I started this program, jumping ships and editing other universities' articles was a big leap, but it's been very fun so far. I'd like to see more people actively participating.

Let's start off the new COTM program the right way. I want to see those articles in GA and FA soon. Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving holiday and enjoy those Black Friday deals.  - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  09:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

usf
hey, you might want to take a look at university of san francisco. some kids are currently "improving" it as a class project in "media studies." i don't have time to wade into it myself, but i'm sure they could learn a lot about wikipedia from interacting with you. best, Amerique dialectics  16:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

USF Media Studies Final
Hello Madcoverboy,

I received your message on my user page. Obviously I am not the Wikipedia expert that you are, but I am a USF student currently, and I am engaged in a Final Project for a class to update and renovate OUR page. I don't know what your history with the University is, but if you actually read through the newly updated page, you will see that the information being added comes directly from the USF website, more specifically the Residence Life portion (http://www.usfca.edu/residence_life/). Indeed, if in your opinion, the information on the University's own website is incorrect, then maybe you should be in communication with those responsible for the content on the website. I would appreciate if you did not delete the hard, honest, and unbiased work our class is contributing for our final project. Above, it was mentioned that we could learn a lot about Wikipedia from interacting with you, but how can we learn if our page is being deleted every time we edit? Hope we can come to an agreement. Thanks, --KateSpan (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, it is not YOUR page. It is Wikipedia's, so anybody can edit it.  And it doesn't matter where you got the information - if it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, then it doesn't belong in that article. Please read the guidelines supplied by Madcoverboy, he knows what he's talking about.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

University of San Francisco
Hey madcoverboy, I'm working with the students who are editing the University of San Francisco and Residence halls at the University of San Francisco pages, and I'll take responsibility for cleaning it up after they are done if there is stuff left to do. I've gone over all the guidelines with them, but they are all newbies -- so WP:BITE applies :) Anyway, thanks for your watchful eye -- I'll talk to them, ok? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. checked the diffs; thanks for doing so much cleanup work. Sorry the article has gotten a little out of control... -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A well-earned barnstar! Amerique dialectics  02:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed! Thanks. I'm just helping with the class so don't have access to their email lists, but I sent a message via the class professor (user:davidms) about working with other Wikipedians. best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
What a nice surprise! Thank you for the barnstar. Alanraywiki (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of History of the College of William & Mary
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article History of the College of William & Mary, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * This is an exact copy of text in the College of William & Mary article. There is no reason for such duplication.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Truthanado (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

List of colleges and universities in Houston
Should Texas A&M University, Prairie View A&M, Sam Houston State University and Stephen F. Austin State University be listed at List of colleges and universities in Houston? Please see Talk:List of colleges and universities in Houston. Your input is appreciated, Thanks Postoak (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

University of Michigan
I have recently went through the entire article, addressing concerns that you have placed in the article's discussion page. If you have the chance, can you take a look at it? Personally, I have not been editing as much as I used to, and am wary of seeing the article end up on FAR, given that, from a look through other FA university articles, there doesn't appear to be a consensus of what an university FA article should be (unless I am missing something). PentawingTalk 19:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's to boosterism...


 - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! You know... if we had that many people look at political boosterism, we might actually have some cleaner politics :) Anyways, happy new year!   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  09:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

University Leads
You recently wrote: "Taking WP:LEAD and combining with WP:UNIGUIDE: "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"" "All colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia." There's absolutely no need to declare the university to be one of the best in the world to justify its notability because its notability was never in doubt simply being a university in the first place."

I respectfully disagree with your reasoning and your conclusion. Furthermore, I think that we have swung too far in the direction of sanitizing articles when we can't write important and correct statements noting that some institutions like UC-Berkeley or Harvard are widely considered to be among the very best in the world. I know that most of the time statements like that are an idle boast with little substantial evidence but when they're true we shouldn't shy away from writing them. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:UNI/COTM
Unfortunately, I set the relaunch near my WikiBreak and was not able to follow-through with the Berkeley article. I am planning on simply extending the COTM to this month to make up for lost time. How does that sound?  - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  04:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As discussed on the COTM's talk page, I have extended Cal's COTM-period until the end of January. Due to my consecutive WikiBreaks I was not able to launch the program properly.  Hope this helps a little bit.  As to your suggestion of introducing new standards, please let me know what your thoughts are.  I'm currently in ATL on layover so I can head back to Florida.  I will be on, which you are free to chat with other WP:UNI users since I'm the channel op.  We can discuss these improvement standards in depth there.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  19:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles Newman (judge)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a different title by copying its content and pasting it into. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. &mdash; madman bum and angel 03:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009
It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Campus photography
I was impressed with several of your pictures for the Berkeley campus. May I ask what you shoot with? Are you using a tilt shift lens or are you just super handy with correcting distortion in Photoshop? Madcoverboy (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish it was either of those at the time... ;-) I used to use a Exilim Ex-Z750, and the only post-processing was stitching with hugin and enblend. I now use a Canon EOS 450D, but I don't think I have any of those pictures on Wikipedia. Anyway, thank you for the compliment, it's very much appreciated! --Falcorian (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Media Lab.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Media Lab.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hand raised in support
Hello! You write a lot about things I care for. I do not enjoy seeing Wikipedia corrupted by any kind of advertising. I am OK with the idea that we have to be ever-vigilant to fight it. Well, then, if you ever want me to read a page, tell me. I can make no guarantees that I will agree (if applicable). I am my own man and have my own ideas (but they usually align with yours). Cheers! COYW (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

FAC nomination
I Nom'd USMA for FAC. However, seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT? 'Cause if it leaks to the VC he could end up MIA, and then we'd all be put on KP. — BQZip01 — talk 18:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Guess I could have included a link instead of being a smart-ass.... — BQZip01 —  talk 18:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

USMA

 * Does USMA need to be put up for GA-status before it can be put up for FA-status? Before we started working on it back in Dec, it was listed at B-class on the discussion page, but now its listed as A-class.  I may be wrong, but isn't A-class better than GA-class anyway?  I don't know when or how it went from B to A.  I'm also deficient in constructing the proper code to list "article history" on the discussion page.  Perhaps you could help with this or send me to someone who can?  Also, "how close" do you think USMA is to FA-stats as far as content?  I think I've corrected the reporting status (DRU) and I'm trying to re-work the history segment per your comments, but I'll be decisively engaged at work this week it might take a few more days.  Thanks for the help! Ahodges7 (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Madcoverboy, I'd like to nominate USMA for inclusion on Wikipedia 1.0. Could you help me out here?  I've read the instructions, but nothing is quite as easy as it seems. I always seem to not dot an "i" or cross a "t".  The Naval Academy made the cut, and quite honestly, its is no where near the quality of USMA's article (and that's not just the Gray Hog in me talking).  I owe you big and hope that I can help you out in the future with one of your projects as I get better at this.  Please advise...   Ahodges7  02:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about separating Operation Iraqi Freedom from the ongoing Global War on Terror. The term GWOT is used to encompass both the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  If you mention OIF separately, then you should drop the GWOT and say Operation Enduring Freedom instead. While the majority of casualties have been from Iraq, some have been in Afghanistan, and some were from the Sept 11 attacks themselves, so I think the more encompassing term GWOT is appropriate rather than singling out separate conflicts.   Ahodges7  talk 15:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement, guidance, and Barnstar.   Ahodges7  talk 21:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Epic" fail my ass
That's not an epic fail. THESE are epic fails... — BQZip01 — talk 01:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: FAs with possible image problems
Hi. KnightLago asked me to go over the images which you pointed out here. Here is my response to each:


 * File:Nlchtownes.jpeg on Duke University. Source: and copyright claim:
 * Nominated for deletion on Commons.
 * File:DanielWebster DartmouthCollegeCase.jpg at Dartmouth College is a borderline fair use justification as there is no commentary on the work itself, it is used merely as an illustration
 * Listed on Non-free content review
 * File:VGSOM IITKGP.jpg at Indian Institutes of Technology has no permission information
 * Copyright licensing listed as disputed on its Commons file page.
 * File:RedBlackCap.jpg, File:Sherwood.JPG, and File:Kheli.jpg at Ohio Wesleyan University have no source or permissions information
 * First one seems alright (probably self-made, since it seems to have been crappily photoshopped); second one already tagged for no licensing on Commons, will be deleted in a few days; third one I found on state.gov using tineye.com - it's probably valid PD.
 * I'm actually inclined to believe the first one is a scan from a book given some of the blown-out effects and other artifacts in the image. I still think it's a problematic image. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, I don't know how I missed that. The full resolution shows a clear moire pattern, indicating a scan from a published source. I've nominated it for deletion on Commons. - Mark 05:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Oriel Boss.jpg and File:Oriel College Feathers.jpg at Oriel College, Oxford are likely trademarked and used without permission
 * You don't need permission to use trademarked signs except for using them as a trade mark. So it would only be a potential problem if we were, say, using the trademark as our site logo. There's a template which indicates an image may have trademarks in them; I have added it to the image pages of these photos.

I hope this has been a help to you. - Mark 04:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope I don't get several WikiProjects worth of editors screaming bloody murder at me! Madcoverboy (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh, I'm the one with my name on all the nominations :) There's nothing wrong with questioning the copyright status of dubious images, in fact, it is a good thing. Thank you for pointing these images out. - Mark 05:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Rankings Question Revisited
Thanks for your response here:. However, the opposing user, continues to revert it and still places the past rankings (of course only for a negative category). I tried explaining it to him on his talk page and showed him your response but still continues to revert. So I was wondering if you could help in providing mediation or commentary. The St. John's University article is here:. I understand if you can't, I figured I ask you first considering universities are your specialty and since you've been to this article before. Thanks. NyRoc (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

TFAR question
I responded to your TFAR recommendation with some questions on the USMA Talk Page. Please let me know what you think. Ahodges7 talk 18:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

ChicagoWikiProject Process For Top Importance Rating
What is the process for an article receiving a Top Importance rating?Pknkly (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
I think I was supposed to use the "talk back" feature. Pknkly (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wish the Higher Education Timeline were still there
I am puzzled why that page was deleted. I'm not so adept as others on leaving notes and defending it, and hope this post is appropriate. There was a concern that the page did not have references, and yet the vast majority of listings had links to other Wikipeda pages. Those make pretty good references to me, and help users learn more about the subject matter. The historical list of creation of colleges and universities worldwide is an important topic for scholars of higher education, and if there is some way to use that list as a "seed" article, or something, it would benefit a lot of people.

Kth (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

University rankings
Hey, there! I thought I'd bring this to your doorstep, seeing as I consider you one of the university article gurus, haha. I just commented over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities but may have missed earlier discussions on the topic. You can see what questions I had, and my own opinion on the matter, there. Cheers! --Aepoutre (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bechstein
Hello. Re this edit: alphabet soup of guidelines and policies notwithstanding, this isn't a case of removing ad copy or tempering exaggeration. The statement you reworded was verifiable and, in fact, already sourced. Bechstein concert grands are highly regarded in essentially all quarters among serious pianists. Fine's oft-cited reference work confirms that, but it doesn't confirm what you changed the sentence to read: that Bechstein "specializes" in concert grands. Bechstein is best known for its concert grands—as is nearly every serious piano maker—because those are the models that receive the most careful design and craftsmanship, but it is something of a stretch to say it specializes in them. I tend not to revert other established editors' work without prior discussion, so please rethink this and let's explore it further if need be.

Cheers, Rivertorch (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I really wish you hadn't copied my comment to article talk without asking first. The deed being done, I have gone ahead and continued the thread there, but I had a pretty good reason for hoping the two of us could have a productive discussion without opening it up to everyone who watches the piano pages.


 * Cheers, Rivertorch (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion - Seeking Advice
I'll be quick and I'll appreciate quick response. There are more than two editors involved, but the editors involved are 'gaming the system' for a very long time. If seeking the third opinion is not the venue for pointing this out. And I agree it might not be obvious to the editors which are not involved into long lasting debate there, what would be the proper venue? Thanks. DawnisuponUS (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Forget it.. Mediation Cabal, I'll go there... DawnisuponUS (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The forces of meatpuppetry are at arrayed against you
From the facebook event page "Save Your Residential College's Wikipedia Page" (39 members):

-- EVENT DESCRIPTION -- Some MIT-grad named "Madcoverboy" is trying to delete the residential colleges' individual wikipedia pages and merge them into one list. He says our "residences" aren't "notable enough to have their own standalone articles." This guy who knows nothing about Rice has declared war on all of us through wikipedia; and unless we make the articles more professional, he will succeed. If you at all like your college and consider it notable enough to be on wikipedia, please go join me in improving your college's article so this guy has no justification in deleting them. Add citations, add notable alumni, add history, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_College_(Rice_University) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Rice_College http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanszen_College http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiess_College http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_College_(Rice_University) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_College_(Rice_University) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovett_College http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Richardson_College http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martel_College http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurtry_College http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_College Look at all the b.s. being shot around: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:UNI#Notability_of___college_residences__.28residential_colleges.29 Scroll to the bottom of this one for some classics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Rice_University_residential_colleges All for Rice's honor! -- COMMENTS -- (Rice) wrote at 11:52pm yesterday So the hubbub seems to be about reliable sources and notability, so where exactly would be the best place to go to get verifiable sources for the colleges? So much of the history passed down at Rice is oral. Furthermore, Duncan and McMurtry probably don't deserve their own pages at this point, considering they aren't even finished and have no real history.

(Rice) wrote at 10:36pm yesterday This dude Madcoverboy is drunk on power, and Rice's status on the only encyclopedia that people use anymore depends on countering him. Read this to educate yourself on the problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Rice_University_residential_colleges and then JOIN THE CAUSE AND FIGHT!!!

(Rice) wrote at 10:16pm yesterday Yeah, AniRaptor2001! Thanks for the help! -mphornet

(Rice) wrote at 10:14pm yesterday I'm fighting for the cause... AniRaptor2001

(Rice) wrote at 9:57pm yesterday Totally agreed. I noticed this a couple of months ago, but I only know enough about hanszen to help it's article. I'm excited to see the quality of these pages improve.

Proceed as you see fit; not sure anything does need to be done, but this info might be useful. Icewedge (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Incident reports
Hey, you were wrong to include me on these incident reports. I don't even have an account on Facebook! You have made an accusation with no proof or evidence - a direct violation of WP:NPA. Please strike me from these lists immediately. Postoak (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Colleges
Sorry that I haven't been able to contribute much. I have "real world" project due tomorrow and it's taken most my attention lately, so I won't be able to comment until tomorrow at the earliest. Without having read it all, I think that residential colleges are article-worthy as long as we're talking colleges that are part of large universities rather than residential halls, dormitories, or any of that (I haven't even checked to see if there are separate articles for the two, but tag or something would see some good use on both if there are), and an article can be established using sources. I'd love to learn more colleges at places like Oxford, but if the article is all "this is what we do on a Saturday night" or each one of them is a stub because there's nothing worth writing about them, then what's the point, right? I realise this isn't very well-thought-out. I'll follow up and contribute to the larger discussion later (if it's still around, I suppose....). Cheers! --Aepoutre (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for the barnstar. Alanraywiki (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa
Hello, Madcoverboy. I've seen the Mediation Cabal case requested for Phi Beta Kappa Society here, and I'm glad to take the case. It appears that you have engaged in discussion about the issue, and I have listed you as a party. I have reviewed the relevant discussions and am looking forward to working towards an ultimate resolution. Regards,  Jd 027  (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page Edits
Hey, thanks for filling me in on not editing talk pages. I instead made comments that appear right after the non-free use notification. Cheers! Kirlinator (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

McMaster University infobox logo discussion
Madcoverboy, wonder if I could borrow a minute of your time to make a call regarding interpretation of WP:UNIGUIDE. The discussion concerns the logo for the McMaster University article and which is most appropriate. It really is a minor issue but it is deviating concentration away from improving the article and I would be more comfortable if an authority figure within the project could just make the call so affairs can move on. Discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Universities. Appreciate you help. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not an authority figure, I just talk a lot. :) Any decision should be reached by consensus, not by writ or decree. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ha ha. Appreciate the help nonetheless. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Userbox
I'm gonna poach your agenda userbox! Madcoverboy (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it :) Maybe can form a new secret "agenda" cabal :) Tom (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Rice College Crests
I noticed you removed them from the infoboxes, but I didn't quite understand your note in the edit history. How should I go about replacing them? Kirlinator (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Boston College (United States)
Seems as if there's some funny business going on over at BC that I thought you might want to know about. Pretty shoddy job, too, as Talk:Boston College doesn't even redirect properly. I just left a message at User talk:Clariosophic. --Aepoutre (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Johns Hopkins Rankings Link
Hi, Madcoverboy - It was recently brought to my attention that the Wikipedia page for Johns Hopkins includes a mention of the school's State University.com ranking. If I'm following the edit history, it looks like you made those edits (thanks!) For some reason, the web site State University.com is currently blacklisted and can't be linked to. I'd like to get our site whitelisted again, but I'm told that whitelist requests from people affiliated with the affected site are typically ignored or declined. As a veteran editor and contributor to the Johns Hopkins page, would you be willing to request that State University.com is whitelisted (at least for this one link in the Johns Hopkins article)? Thanks for your consideration —Preceding unsigned comment added by StateUniversity (talk • contribs) 20:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

AN3
You may want to know about Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring William M. Connolley (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi!
Thanks for (starting) the article on Joseph Takahashi; it's been on my to-do list for ages. Added him to categories living people and missing birth year (living persons). (A photo would be nice!)

Reading your user page, I wonder if such topics/articles as Support group and Self-help might be within your area of interest. They could use some re-working, I think. Regards, - Hordaland (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I nominated it for a WP:DYK. Please go comment on the nomination at T:DYK. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

USF
Sure thing. I don't know anything about it this time, but it sounds like the same assignment. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * re: this, here's the blog w/ the class assignment. You may want to contact the prof. I already did - & guest lectured for his class last fall! - but no use, as it's the same 'let's all attack the USF page' assignment this spring. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Steinway & Sons
WOW! I was on vacation for a week and seem to have missed all the fun. I'll monitor the change and back you up.THD3 (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that Fanoftheworld removed the Artist list from the Baldwin Piano Company page. Bias, perhaps?THD3 (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like my presumption, about some users being judging the Steinway article harder than other piano articles, is correct. It can not be interesting for anyone, that a long promotional list with no information than just names, shall be removed. Articles about other piano brands shall, of course not, be judged more gently than the Steinway article. And remember, the harder the Steinway article will be judge, the harder will all the other piano articles be judged.
 * "and back you up". I don't think that will change anything at all. THD3's opinion is not a relevant third opinion. A little group of users consistently backing each other up has no value and influence at all. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

FAU page
I appreciate your input. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So my reverts are undone, but the other reverts stay? Wikipedia is out of compliance with FAU's Visual Standards Manual if you guys keep the seal as the main logo of the university.  As an officer of the university, I will indeed report this to the Communication Department to stop FAU's logos from being used at all on Wikipedia.Yezn0r (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

VORTEX projects
Thank you for your kind offer to help with this article, it is always good to have collaboration on items which are noted by others who have that strength in their portfolio.SriMesh | talk  04:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

NU Page
Hey, thanks again for updating the NU site. How did you create the aerial view? I noticed that it's pretty new - it includes the current construction around tech. Deen Gu (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

UMaine Carnegie classification
Hi there -- thanks for standardizing the University of Maine article. You note in one of the sections that information about the Carnegie classification is missing, but there's a cited mention in the lead. Is more information required for the section you have tagged? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Saw your note on the talk page, checking out the UMich page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Help
Mad, I've asked Kevbo the same thing.... could I have your input at Talk:MidAmerica Nazarene University? I realise that I'm not super-friendly, and perhaps that's going to burn me, but I've been civil as far as I can tell and I'm still running into WP:V issues with an editor that might be causing more WP:CIVIL issues the more I refer to guidelines. I'd love to know if I'm wrong but I think I've gone about things the right way, if not, as I said, a super-friendly way.... More at User talk:Moonraker0022.... King of the Arverni (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry they've been so late in coming, but I did want to offer you my thanks for your input over at MidAmerica Nazarene University. You were very helpful and it was awfully nice to have a fresh set of eyes over there. King of the Arverni (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Vanderbilt University
You've solved the problem of what other universities to include (or not to include) in the athletics section very tidily. Thanks for your work: sometimes, we can't see the easy answers in difficult arguments. Cheers! Esrever (klaT) 18:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: ITN
I'd rather leave it to admins more familiar with ITN. Sorry, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit to Bryn Mawr College
I do not think your edit summary, "spruce up", was sufficiently descriptive. I would have preferred something like "remove 'highly selective' and its citations", because that would have been an accurate description of your edit.

Please take more care with your edit summaries in the future.

Thanks. —Dominus (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Or you might have put "remove highly selective again per WP:PEACOCK and WP:BOOSTER and wide precedent on university articles", which I also would have preferred. I suppose your edit summary for Bryn Mawr College was a simple error. —Dominus (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Recent Edit to University of Illinois
Madcoverboy, can you give me your reasoning for deleting reference to the Admissions Controversy information that I posted on the University of Illinois' page. To me, this is pertinent news that has appeared in several Chicago Tribune's stories over the past week and in other consumer and education media in Illinois and elsewhere, and is part of an ongoing issue that will surely be covered by the news media for months to come or longer. And, if this issue doesn't belong on the main U of I page, then how about my either:

1) Starting a separate special page on this U of I Admissions Controversy issue alone. 2) Adding reference to this story on a Wikipedia page on university admissions or something comparable (if there is one)

I look forward to learning your reasoning. Thank you. myk60640Myk60640 (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah
Seriously, I feel like you and ElKevbo are the only two editors who give a rip about UNI. I'm trying to get more involved (I hope my input re: Bryn Mawr was in the least bit helpful -- I know how frustrating it can be to ask for input and receive none), but most of my content discussions end up overwhelmingly 2 and maxing out at 3 people. On another note, it was remiss of me to simply add the tuition discussion on to the earlier one, but I would like to see if you have any thoughts on relocating the UNIGUIDE link at UNI. It seems oddly placed and almost hidden to me. I'll create a separate section for it so we can start talking about that, as well. Take care. --King of the Arverni (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak
Heads-up -- I'm going on WP:Wikibreak until Talk:New England School of Law, User talk:Hiberniantears, and Wikiquette alerts can be worked out. In the meantime, New England School of Law is just getting worse. I can't help but wonder if there were efforts to get me to give up so that edits like this can go through, and this move can take place in spite of an article and "http://www.nesl.edu/" to the contrary. I've tried getting UNI help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities to no avail, and one administrator (User:Hiberniantears) seems to be distracted. I'm tempted to throw in the towel, since I don't seem to making a difference and no one with more experience seems to be helping. --King of the Arverni (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC
Thanks for the notice. Given my earlier reminder on WP:Canvassing, I assume you are planning to notify everyone who has commented on the peer reviews, article's talk page (including the GAN) and FAC? Ruhrfisch ><> &deg; &deg; 03:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye aye captain! Madcoverboy (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Northwestern images

 * Thanks. This is completely unrelated - University Hall is one of my favorite buildings and while I kind of like your photo of it in the Northwestern University article, I wonder if it is really the best image to convey the sense of the building to those unfamiliar with it? I always liked the view from a distance and the way the towers and spires seem almost stretched out... well I assume you know what I mean. This photo on Flickr is close. I really like your aerial shot of the Evanston campus. Keep up the good work, and thanks for the notices. Ruhrfisch ><> &deg; &deg; 04:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Try these on for size, though they still have the barrel distortion. You and I will forever be underappreciated and underskilled photographers, respectively :) I'd be more than happy to go fetch some photos for you of whatever choice topics you'd like from the Chicago area since my repertoire has largely been proscribed by proximity (Northwestern) and convenience (the Loop). I should probably be telling Tony this too! Madcoverboy (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I prefer the first one (UH2). I have had some luck with taking several photos and stitching them together too - I like Autostitch. Ruhrfisch ><> &deg; &deg; 21:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

ST. John's University
"The whole blocking thing with macdoverboy also looks very suspicious." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASt._John%27s_University_%28New_York%29&diff=297576129&oldid=297172094 208.120.47.96 (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiBirthday
I saw from here that it's been exactly four years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 14:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: JHU article quality
Fair enough. And thanks for the heads-up; I was unaware of the quality nomination protocol.TennisGrandSlam (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Francis Amasa Walker
We just had an edit conflict and I unwittingly reverted several of your changes. I'm still in the process of writing up the section, perhaps you could hold off until I finish so to avoid conflicts, I'll drop a note here, and you can have your way with it? Cheers! Madcoverboy (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all done with the military service section. Fire away! Madcoverboy (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits. Walker also has a GAC open but no one has contributed as of yet. Is there a way to do this in the context of MILHIST assessment? Madcoverboy (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure I can help with this. For some reason, the good article process is completely divorced from the other evaluation processes. It is possible to get the military history guys to do a peer review or class A assessment. Then there is a completely separate process for featured articles that is not limited to a particular task force. A strange situation. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

New recruit
I recently recruited User:Masonpatriot to join WP:UNI. Just thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to welcome him/her. That is, I wonder if it would help our solidarity as a project to "recruit" and welcome university article-editors with a "how do you do" and a link/list of our helpful guidelines, like the Welcoming Committee. Perhaps a silly idea coming from an insensitive jerk like me, but it just occurred to me after reading your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. --King of the Arverni (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Others
You inspired me to search for more, but this is the only other one I could find in article or list form:. Most others were already redirects or were sections within articles. --King of the Arverni (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is a good thing. I've nominated two more Catholic University of America list articles. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipediology
Glad to hear from you. Check out my latest blog post :) We (Wikipedia researchers) need to get more organized. PS. Are all of your relevant works listed here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing Citation on UCSD article
Hello Madcoverboy, I was trying to find a citation for how many buildings UCSD has. I couldn't find a citation online. Thus, I checked in the history section to check to see who added the information and I found that you were the one who added the information on September 17, 2008. If you still remember the source where you got this information, can you please cite it on the article? Thank you. Tech30 (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Goofiness
Do you think that the correlation between this and this might warrant some WP:SOCK investigation or WP:RFCU? I'm looking over the guidelines right now. Also, as a more experienced editor, what's your opinion of processes like this one? It seems a bit needless to me, but I'm fairly confident that I've done what's right and that'll come out in the end. --King of the Arverni (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised the mediating editor even took the case given the lack of prior dispute resolution attempts. You're frankly between a rock and a hard place with either having to submit to wasting your time to clear your name or refusing to have your obviously good-faith edits second-guessed by a POV warrior and the baggage that accompanies it. If I was in your position, I would remind the mediator that prior dispute resolution has not been attempted and you will not submit to mediation until it has. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

UCSD article improvement
Hello Madcoverboy, several people have edited the UCSD article since you reviewed it about 5 days ago. I believe the article's quality in some areas has improved. If you have time, can you do another review of the article and tell us which areas of the article meet good article standards and which still don't? Thanks. Tech30 (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Francis Amasa Walker
Hi, I am reviewing Francis Amasa Walker for GA and have left some comments at Talk:Francis Amasa Walker/GA1. In general it is a very well written article. It is a little difficult to read because it seems to lack focus. Also, the lead does not follow WP:LEAD and the "Legacy" section seems to include irrelevant detail while possibly leaving out important points. Feel free to contact me with questions or comments. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 14:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have answered your questions about the lead on my talk page. I am tired now, but maybe later I can look at it more closely. You can have a lot of detail in the article that does not have to be in the lead. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Inauguration of Barack Obama FAC3
Have we addressed your concerns in Inauguration of Barack Obama?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We could use some feedback, if you are ready to offer any.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

UCF GA Nomination
Hello Madcoverboy, since you reviewed the UCF article for GA nomination on the seventh, I feel that the quality of the article has greatly improved and that most of your concerns have been addressed. When you have a spare moment can you please give the article a once over and let us know what you feel can still be improved upon. --Scpmarlins (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I'll be working on your suggestions right away...--Scpmarlins (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Madcoverboy, I have added references to all of the areas that you outlined yesterday, as well as added a few additional references were needed. I also took advantage and took care of some typos and grammatical errors that I encountered in the article. If you could just let me know what else could be improved upon. --Scpmarlins (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As per the UCF article, can you please tell us what we can to further enhance the article. Thank you! --Scpmarlins (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, We'll get working on those recommendations right away. --Scpmarlins (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Pennsylvania State University is at peer review
Hello! Pennsylvania State University is currently undergoing peer review. Could you also post your comments about Diversity on the peer review page? I think they are valuable. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the barnstar! I started editing this article somewhat by accident. I listed Alamogordo, New Mexico for peer review, and as my contribution to the overall peer review effort I looked over the other articles and picked Penn State as the most interesting. It was a lot more work than I expected, but it worked out well. --Uncia (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

New article, new problem: Steinway Model D
Hi Madcoverboy! I made a comment on the talk page of this article here which I think you may be interested in. Please comment so that consensus may be reached and the article may be improved. Thank you.--Karljoos (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)--Karljoos (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines
What do you think? --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Accreditation
Hey, there. Some of us have questions about the recent accreditation-related change to UNIGUIDE. We're over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines. Cheers! --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

University of Glasgow
Thanks for chipping in at University of Glasgow's GA reassessment. I was in two minds as to whether to delist it outright, as I think the work required is considerable, as your additional comments make plain. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Top-importance Chicago articles
For the rest of this month we are looking for more candidates to be promoted to Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. We are hoping to bring the list of category members to a total of 50. Either you have participated in past votes and discussions or you have recently signed up to be a part of WP:CHICAGO. In either case, please come visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment where we are determining who to add to the September 1st ballot. Some candidate debates have lingered, but there are many new ones from the project's top 50 according to the Wikipedia:Release Version 0.7. Help us determine which pages to add to the ballot.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO voting for Top-importance Chicago articles
Your status has been changed to inactive at WikiProject Chicago/members since you did not respond to our confirmation of active status request. If this is an error please come update your status. Also feel free to come vote at WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment for our next Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. Voting continues until September 10 and nominations/discussions are ongoing for future ballot candidates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago/Assessment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Giorgi Latsabidze‎
I still remember the good contributions you made on the Steinway article I'd be grateful if you could have a look at this article. I am concerned about the general tone (Talk:Giorgi Latsabidze‎) and the lists used at the end of the article. Cheers!--Karljoos (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yale University
How would you feel about removing the article issues template from the top of the article? The worst problems seem to have been addressed and individual sections are now tagged for further improvement. - Pointillist (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Cancel that... someone has just decided to remove the per-section improvement tags, sigh. - Pointillist (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for re-listing the issues at Talk:Yale_University—good call. Pointillist (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Question re your edit at LFG talk page
Just curious; did you intend to create a new section named "AB I" when you responded to me? If so, that's fine; it just looks odd to me and I can't figure out what it's supposed to mean. Cheers! Mark Shaw (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just made an arbitrary break ("AB") so that it's easier to edit and navigate through the discussion. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay - "AB I" means "arbitrary break #1." I get it now. Thanks! Mark Shaw (talk) 20:07, 30 September 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)

Block log
For the future, this is a log of blocks I have performed and this is a log of blocks that have been put on my account. Racepacket has no cleaner a record than I.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 23:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

NU intro
Maybe there's a way we could change it a little so not every sentence starts with the word Northwestern? I propose this slight change. Plus, I think telling people how much acreage is redundant.

Northwestern University (NU) is a private research university located primarily in Evanston, Illinois, United States. Northwestern was founded in 1851 by John Evans and eight other Chicago businessmen to serve the people of what had once been part of the Northwest Territory. Instruction began in 1855 and women were first admitted in 1869. Today, Northwestern's main campus is located in Evanston, Illinois, along the shore of Lake Michigan. The law and medical schools are located in downtown Chicago's Streeterville neighborhood. In 2008, the Medill School of Journalism and School of Communication opened a campus in Education City, Doha, Qatar.

Northwestern is organized into twelve undergraduate, graduate, and professional schools and colleges and in 2008 enrolled 8,476 undergraduate and 9,955 graduate and professional students. Northwestern's schools of management, engineering, and communication are among the most academically productive in the nation in their respective disciplines.[9] Northwestern managed research and development budgets totaling $420.0 million in 2006, 34th among all universities and 13th among private universities in the United States. Alumni include three Presidential nominees, two Supreme Court justices, two Nobel Prize laureates, nine Pulitzer Prize laureates, and six Academy Award laureates.

Northwestern is a founding member and remains the sole private institution in the Big Ten Conference. The Northwestern Wildcats compete in 19 intercollegiate sports in the NCAA's Division I.

Deen Gu (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Black Ivy League
An article that you may have been interested in, Black Ivy League, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Racepacket (talk) 16:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sociology portal bar
Hi. You recently changed the sociology portal bar. Thanks for the input. I have, however, changed it back as, in the process of adding computational sociology, you have replaced Islamic sociology - a significant topic and and one of the best articles within the sociology project. 'Islamic sociology' has nothing to do with the 'sociology of religion'; it doesn't consist of Islam as a topic per se, but rather sociology in Islamic thought. It would be good to get computational sociology in there eventually, but for the time being that article is very much start-class and not very impressive. Perhaps when it reaches C-class level we could prioritise it over something else listed. --Tomsega (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Chicago external links
A new user has been trying to place external links to Forgotten Chicago on the Chicago main page, and undid my reversion. I personally see the external link as being uncalled for there, per WP:USCITY and WP:LINKFARM. In order to prevent an edit war, I was wondering if you could jump in with your opinion. Thanks much --BaronLarf 05:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello again
So impressed was I with your efforts on the computational sociology page that I attempted to introduce it into the portal bar again. Unfortunately, it doesn't really fit, and is not quite fundamental enough to constitute the omission of something else in its place. However, I have added computational sociology as a new part in the research section of the main sociology page. I hope this is cool beans.--Tomsega (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Third time's the charm?
MSM is up for FAC again after consensus was unable to be established its last time around. If you're willing to visit its current FAC and express your continued support, I would greatly appreciated it! —Eustress talk 00:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Not sure if you still collect these things, but please accept my sincere thanks for your help in ensuring the utmost quality in MSM and other articles at FAC. —Eustress talk 13:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Cal Poly Pomona Barnstar (Bronze)
--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

FPC
The basketball arena pic is up at FPC now. —Eustress talk 02:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3.1
You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3. I thought you might want to sign up for Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3.1 from 10:30-11:45 a.m. on Saturday May 1, 2010 at the UIC Student Center West,.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Jack L. Rives
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

SESP
Thanks for the heads up on the Wiki policies. I'm kind of new to this, and don't know exactly the proper form of everything just yet. I've adjusted my profile to reflect my affiliation, and hopefully that will clear up any potential for bias in the articles I edit. Thanks once again! - Sesp10

And sorry for putting this in the wrong place! Looks like I have a lot to learn. By the way, I took a look at History of Northwestern University and it's incredible! Great job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sesp10 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup Barnstar

 * Awesome! Thanks! :D Madcoverboy (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Brigham Young University
What is your reasoning for deleting my reversion citing six sources that all referred to BYU as the Harvard of the West? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.237.82.66 (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Robert Kraut page
Thanks for working on my bio page. One correction. I don't do research on visual attention, but rather the role of visual elements in interpersonal communication. I could provide a better picture (one that I took), if I understood how to make public. Would putting it on my flickr page with creative commons rights be sufficient? Robertekraut (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alert on Kiesler's article. I weighted in on the AfD page. I also put a self-portrait on http://www.flickr.com/photos/robertekraut/4800419505/, with appropriate permission. Robertekraut (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks to your helpful comments and support, Shimer College is now a Featured Article! -Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC) --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Prefix or No Prefix
There's a more structured and informed than usual discussion taking place regarding the The prefix being added to Ohio State University. As you've participated in the past, I thought I'd inform you in case you'd like to participate. Ol Yeller '''Talktome 15:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

us university ranking discussion
Hey, Madcoverboy. I am the person who added Consus Group Composite to university rankings. There is a discussion right now on its use. I read your contribution to the post, so if you can, please do join in the discussion again. ThanksZoroastrama100 (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

University of Michigan
Please check the discussion page concerning needed updates. I believe that it will take some time for me to address all the issues with the article (given that I can not devote a lot of time to Wikipedia, plus it seems that I am the only one who is even willing to address these issues). Hopefully, in the coming days the amount of work done on the article would preclude the need to submit the article to FAR. PentawingTalk 19:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The updates and corrections are coming along. Hence, if you intend to submit the article to FAR, can you please hold off until at least October? Hopefully by then the needed work on the article will be finished. PentawingTalk 03:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, thanks for making the effort to improve and save it! Madcoverboy (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for interviewing!
Hello,. I'd like to thank you for participating in The Signpost's interview of WikiProject Universities. Your time helped make it a success. Althought the report will be published soon, feel free to take a look here. Once again, thanks for stopping by. I look forward to publishing the report.

<span style="border:2px solid grey;background:black;padding:1px;color:gold;text-shadow:white 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em"> â�³ ono

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 23:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia as a game
I stumbled across your slideshow on Wikipedia and ludology, and enjoyed it very much. Great analysis and very thought-provoking. Thanks!  -PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's always nice to hear that other people read & appreciate your work -- which is also why I contribute to Wikipedia. I unfortunately haven't really had much time to read and do more in that space, but I hope to do so in the future. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Harvard
This kind of thing tends to happen every year when new freshman start at the College. It should probably calm down in a month or two. Sawagner201 (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I assure you that I'm not a freshman and I don't appreciate your implicit denigration of myself and other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto. <span style="color:	#002664">~DC  Let's Vent 20:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Caltech
Re : You seem to have removed all context for the rankings given. Please attribute the remaining ranks to someone. — sligocki (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Let me know if you have any concerns by posting to the Talk page in the future. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. Thanks for fixing it. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Harvard University: The Harvard of the Northeast
Thanks for dropping a line at WT:UNI regarding the Harvard discussion. It was very well-phrased and I really appreciate you working hard to make the phrasing neutral so as not sway or prejudice other editors.

Do you think we should place a similar note a few other places, too? The NPOV noticeboard springs to mind immediately as a potentially good place to obtain input from experienced and interested editors. I imagine there might be a good place somewhere in the labyrinth of the MOS, too (WP:LEAD ?). ElKevbo (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I really always do try to act in good faith, even to the point of paradox by appearing to have an axe to grind (as User:DC seems to believe). If you're ok with the terminology, I'll scout out some other places and post there. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the phrasing is great and I trust you to make suitable modifications for specific venues. Let me know how I can help! ElKevbo (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Phrasing works for me too. A couple other noticeboards we could post at are WP:NPOVN and WP:RSN.  <span style="color:	#002664">~DC  Let's Vent 19:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up on Harvard. (Let the Era of WikiHype Begin?  :) Student7 (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Northwestern University
Hi. While I appreciate that change in partnerships are uninteresting, actually any reader looking at any rankings might be intrigued to know that two new ranking systems have been bred out of a former partnership. Secondly it needs to be said due to the potential for copyright infringement. --ArthurGD (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)ArthurGD

Are you sitting down?
Because this just happened: Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania rankings.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, there's a long history of these historical rankings lists being created. Thankfully, there's also a long history of them being deleted as WP:IINFO. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously? I thought this article was breaking new ground in the boosterism arts.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

University of Michigan
I think I have addressed every concern there is concerning the article. If you think there is more, can you list them in the talk page? Thanks. PentawingTalk 02:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

MIT review
I'm reviewing MIT, per your request at WP:UNI. I'm looking through the image, and File:MIT firetruck hack.jpg is under a non-free license at Flickr. Sorry. Maybe you can get OTRS permission on it.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits at W&J. I have the beginnings of my review of MIT at User talk:GrapedApe/CU, if you want to see it as I write it. --GrapedApe (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Cornell
Thank you for your recent edits, which I have found to be constructive. I honestly do not know who this IP is who repeatedly adds the cornerstone letter quotation in full in both the Cornell University and History of Cornell University articles, but he is very persistent. I personally do not consider sectarianism a big threat at Cornell, and the item attracted news only in the context of the "Creationism/Intelligent Design" debate. (When I was at Cornell, Intelligent Design was taught in the Urban Planning Dept.)

I have left detailed responses to your observations about the future direction of the article on the talk page. Again, I support your deleting (twice) the vague text on interdisciplinary students introduced by the same IP that re-added the block cornerstone quote. I disagree on adding details re the current leadership, and do not feel that financial aid is over-emphasized. We may have stylistic differences, but I do sincerely appreciate your efforts. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

FAC for Washington & Jefferson College
Thanks for your review of my FAC, both for the compliment, the substantive suggestions, and for the analysis of some of the other comments. I hope you don't mind, but I restored your comments on the FAC, since I believe that they are highly relevant to the discussion.

I the next few months, I will be re-opening another FAC. Would you be interested in assisting that in some way?--GrapedApe (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer
Hi there. I see that you are a new page patroller. Is there the possibility that you can review my recently created Nigeria Airways destinations article? What I did is just split the content from the Nigeria Airways article into the new one. Thanks in advance for your help.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket
For your information, three editors from the US Roads wikiproject have filed Requests for comment/Racepacket 2. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

MIT
Hello, you are the main contributor to the MIT article. It really has chances to become FA, but has several issues. I repaired the dead links, but there are three templates remaining in the article, could you help? TGilmour (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ward Building 060527.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Ward Building 060527.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Contagion
Can you please cut down the plot summary to under 700 words per WP:FILMPLOT? Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 22:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the awesome "Themes" section addition! I am wondering, in the third paragraph, starting with "Dr. Hextall violates protocols", which reference did you use for the passage? It helps to have a reference at the end of each paragraph so we can know where all the information comes from. I assume it's The New York Times? Just wanted to make sure. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 18:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They're examples from the movie which shouldn't need to be cited. A few could be trimmed or removed for brevity. Let's continue this and future discussions on the article talk page. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Vannevar Bush portrait.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Vannevar Bush portrait.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Infinite Corridor.JPG


A tag has been placed on File:Infinite Corridor.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Acather96 (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Chiphilogo.jpg
FYI: I tagged an image you uploaded, Chiphilogo.jpg, with di-no source. --GrapedApe (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will endeavour to rewrite the section sometime shortly. Either way, I don't think a single sentence of the current section belongs on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.209.120 (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Interview
Hi Madcoverboy, I am a Wikipedian and researcher from Carnegie Mellon University, working with Professors Robert E. Kraut and Aniket Kittur. We’ve published many scholarly papers on Wikipedia and are partnering with the Wikimedia Foundation on several new projects.

I have been analyzing collaboration in Wikipedia, especially Collaborations of the Week/Month. My analysis of seven years of archival Wikipedia data shows that Collaborations of the Week/Month substantially increase the amount and nature of project members’ contributions, with long lasting effects. We would like to talk to Wikipedians to better understand the processes that that produce this behavior change.

We’ve identified you as a particularly good candidate to speak with because of your involvement with the WikiProject Universities' Collaborations, which is one of those we’ve been investigating. It would really help us if you would be willing to have a short talk with us, less than 30 minutes of your time. We can talk via skype or instant messenger or other means if you’d prefer. Do you have time at any point during this week to chat? If so, please send an email to haiyiz@cs.cmu.edu or drop a line on my talk page.

Thanks!

(This my personal website) Haiyizhu (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages DDS and MSW (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for information addition to an image you've uploaded
Hello -- I'm wondering if you could add to the description of File:MIT_Broad_Center.jpg what corner of the building is displayed (e.g. cross-street(s)) and which of the two buildings this depicts. I'm editing OpenStreetMap and would be interested in using that information to enhance the OSM representation (OSM permalink for original building). Thanks. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
Message delivered by Dominic at 08:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

Boston Wiknic
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Meetup/Boston at 14:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of Traditions and student activities at the University of Southern California


The article Traditions and student activities at the University of Southern California has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This article is a virtually identical copy of sections at University of Southern California; in fact it actually contains less information than the parent article, due to changes in the parent article since the spinoff. There have been almost no additions or changes to this article in the four years since it was created as a "dump". Before deleting, those few recent additions should be transferred back to the USC page; I will do so if notified.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address 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 articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on some good advice I have withdrawn the Proposed Deletion. Instead I am proposing to redirect the article back to University of Southern California. This article was a good idea but it never caught on; people have tended to make their edits at the USC article instead. Your comments are welcome. --MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability of CWUR rankings
Hello, Madcoverboy, as you've responded to the discussion of the notability of this newly created CWUR World University Rankings at the Template talk:Infobox US university ranking, I was wondering if you can come back here and continue the discussion below.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point
Very good point. (I meant to bitch about this earlier but forgot.) Completely wrong tone: nice catch. Cheers 138.37.199.206 (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternative hypothesis
"...Much of the substantive content of the article is from editors who have edited none of the other articles about shootings examined here and likely no other articles about other shootings."

Let's just say a little bird told me that it might also be that editors who frequently participate in breaking news articles are far more often likely to be bullied and abused by administrators, causing them to abandon accounts or simply refrain from using them until semiprotection is imposed. 67.41.200.185 (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Me Unfortunately
Hi, I am glorified that you and others note my edits. Yet, I see that you and your friends are attempting to have me banned. I'm sad about that. I'm just a guy with an idea who likes to do some work at Wikipedia, just like you. It is a shame that you and your friends seek to ban me or knock me down. Shameful. Terrible. Unfriendly. And, I am unhappy about it. As YOU should be. Your actions are unfriendly, and I am left with considering them in that light.

- Jake =//= Johnny Squeaky 05:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Classic case of playing the victim here. Johnny, you're not being oppressed; you just can't be told you're wrong, apparently. Drmies (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting
You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Harvard
Great work -- keep at it -- I'll keep hands off until your burst of energy is spent. Bear in mind that much material should shifted to or from Harvard College. EEng (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC) PS Are you part of the worldwide conspiracy as well? WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard

Thank you for your great work regarding the Harvard Univ. article! I'm glad to see we (read: mostly you) have been able to make some headway in addressing the issues with the article in a dispassionate manner. I do have one comment: info about cost of attendance and scholarships is currently in the "Academic > Teaching and learning" subheading, which doesn't really make sense. Probably should have it own subheading, but I don't want to conflict with any edits you may be currently making. Anyways, happy editing! DK  qwerty     03:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Even Harvard stooges have a heart sometimes
My spiritual advisor has been encouraging me to focus less on winning all the time. Maybe we should give in on this one. What do you think? EEng (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Article Change Requested
Dear Editor, a while ago you've created a wiki article, and I am reaching out to request an article name change. Pls see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Las_Vegas_Philharmonic_Orchestra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artdriver (talk • contribs) 15:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 March
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) 00:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Northeastern University page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=600444211 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%2F600444211%7CNortheastern University%5D%5D Ask for help])

This Friday: Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA
You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Old box telephone.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Old box telephone.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Building 7 entrance.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Building 7 entrance.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:John Evans.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:John Evans.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Early Wikipedia
Hi, I'm currently reading The Wikipedia Revolution by Andrew Lih and I noticed that your name was on page 64, quoted "*EnglishWikipedia at 08:06:38 (1 change).....BrianKeegan"

Was this user indeed you? If so, I'd love to ask a few questions about the origins of Wikipedia. I'm contacting you in particular because I happen to follow you on Twitter (I appreciated your data analytics work). Let me know if you are indeed in the book! Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Airware, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fast Company. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Campus of Northwestern University


The article Campus of Northwestern University has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * This article is incomplete and simply repeats information (sometimes word-for-word) in other articles. There have been no substantive changes to the text since about 2010.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address 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 articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Leschnei (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * , I see that you have a list of future projects that includes merging Campus of Northwestern University and List of Northwestern University buildings. I considered that also but decided that all of the information in 'Campus' is covered in more specific articles, so I proposed this deletion. If you have comments/objections, I would be happy to discuss them, either at the deletion discussion or on a talk page. Leschnei (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sunday July 16: New England Wiknic @ Cambridge, MA
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Describing academic degrees in University Articles
Hi Brian, I hesitated to contact you for 3 reasons:
 * 1) It regards a "rule" you wrote that I am challenging how a fellow Wikipedian enforced it
 * 2) Alfred E. Neuman terrified me as a kid
 * 3) You're a Red Sox fan. Just kidding...  (-;

Please see your 8-Jul-2009 Madcoverboy update to "spruce up and expand" the Wikipedia essay "Wikipedia:College and university article advice" at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice&diff=301010199&oldid=299628095. Under "Academics" section therein, you inserted "Because Wikipedia is not a directory, do not attempt to list every major, degree, or program offered in this or any section."

I essentially agree with the espoused principle. Wikipedia should not attempt to mirror a school's catalogues - this is redundant, adds noise and bloat, and is very difficult to maintain & police.

However, I disagree with the 24-Apr-2018 enforcement action (full reversion) taken by Elkevbo at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_H._Smith_School_of_Business&diff=838079644&oldid=838078872.

You can see Talk history on Elkevbo's action at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_H._Smith_School_of_Business#Detailed_listing_of_degree_programs.

Should I insert an abbreviated version? For example:

Degrees
The Robert H. Smith School of Business offers programs at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, including bachelor's degrees, full-time and part-time Master of Business Administration (MBA), online MBA, MS, MFin, Executive MBA, and PhDs. Degrees are offered in traditional business school majors such as accounting, finance, and other majors. However, for certain academic concentrations sometimes offered by standalone business colleges (e.g., economics, real estate, statistics), University of Maryland (UMD) instead offers those programs and associated degrees in a different school within UMD. In other cases (e.g., legal issues, business ethics, public policy), the subject matter is instead incorporated into each of the broader degrees that are offered by the Smith School. - Mary Marykartowski (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't edit too actively anymore, but my personal opinion is this not particularly egregious given what passes on other universities' articles, but in practice I would defer to ElKevbo because he's one of a handful of editors doing the Lord's work trying to enforce a modicum of adherence to policy. A compromise would be to see if you can cut the paragraph down to a few sentences to be merged with a more general "academics" section. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chiphilogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Chiphilogo.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) 17:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve The Mushroom at the End of the World
Thanks for creating The Mushroom at the End of the World.

A New Page Patroller Boleyn just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

"Please add your references."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

File:The Mushroom at the End of the World.png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

2019 US Banknote Contest
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Relevant discussion on WT:HED
A discussion which may be relevant to you is currently taking place on WT:HED (section) on the wider picture of WP:BOOSTERISM across university articles. Please see the relevant section if you wish to contribute, as any consensus made there may end up impacting articles you have contributed to, and it would be sensible to get involved earlier rather than going through any discussion it again if it affects those pages. Your views and input would be most welcome! Shadowssettle(talk) 15:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"St Denys Theological Istitute" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect St Denys Theological Istitute. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 20 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC  678  17:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Scaling up towards A Quantitative Portrait of Wikimedia's High-Tempo Collaborations during disasters like the 2020 Coronavirus Pandemic
Hi Brian,

as briefly mentioned over at Talk:Wikipedia's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, I am interested in
 * exploring your code for this study
 * zooming out from the English Wikipedia to
 * all Wikipedia languages and
 * all Wikimedia projects and Wikidata in particular,
 * zooming out from this disaster to disaster handling more generally, especially disease outbreaks.

The main drivers behind my interest are
 * the desire to inform initiatives like m:Wikimedians for Disaster Response that aim to prepare the ground such that the wiki responses to future disasters can be further improved
 * a general interest in how disasters trigger open collaboration and how openness assists in addressing disasters
 * a specific interest in data sharing in the context of disease outbreaks, particularly the COVID-19 one.

Would you be interested in lending your expertise and workflows to any of that? Thanks and cheers, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out. I'd be happy to share code and data. I can post the notebooks and the smaller data files to a GitHub repo. If speed is more important than clarity, I can do this immediately. If clarity is more important than speed, I'll need a few weeks to go back and document my code better than I have. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Off-wiki question
Has got peer-reviewed biblio parameters yet? This is a beyond-Wikipedia question, for a minor update to =. Boud (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Still not accepted for publication. It's a beast of a manuscript and will likely be broken into parts and become multiple manuscripts. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear that :(. I hadn't noticed before that it's such a big paper. Glad I'm not the referee. :) It reads smoothly and seems well unified to me, so breaking it up would be a pity. But journals have constraints and editors/referees may have views on article size too. Boud (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Cynthy Wu moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Cynthy Wu, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 17:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

A Quantitative Portrait of Wikipedia's High-Tempo Collaborations during the 2020 Coronavirus Pandemic
Medium-tempo (7-day time scale) question: Is there updated (accepted status, or name change after splitting, ...) biblio data for ? Proofs for =  (PeerJ, accepted) should be ready in a week or so, so after this I won't be able to update any biblio parameters.

The final version of 2007.11779, in some sense, has statistical implications for WP:RS and WP:BIAS. How can we reduce the demographic bias in Wikipedia when there's statistical evidence that government agencies in countries with less press freedom are more likely to fake official government medical data? I'm not proposing any magic solution, and I'm not proposing that we reduce content on countries with less press freedom (which is why this is just a user talk page thinking-aloud comment, not a proposal). Boud (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)


 * No updates or progress on publications. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Cynthy Wu
Hello, Madcoverboy. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cynthy Wu, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cynthy Wu (November 15)
<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cynthy Wu and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Cynthy Wu, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Cynthy_Wu Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liance&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Cynthy_Wu reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-Liancetalk/contribs 21:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cynthy Wu (November 20)
<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cynthy Wu and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Cynthy Wu, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Cynthy_Wu Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S0091&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Cynthy_Wu reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

United States Military Academy featured article review
I have nominated United States Military Academy 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Cynthy Wu


Hello, Madcoverboy. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cynthy Wu".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 18:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

David Copperfield help
Hi there - I proposed some updates to the David Copperfield article back in February here. Since the Request edits queue seems to be stalled and you’re a member of WP:LAS, I was wondering if you’d be interested in reviewing my proposals? I can’t do it myself because of a COI. Thanks very much. MagicTech1902 (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to Boston-Gathering, celebrating Wikipedia’s 22th Birthday
After several years of distancing, I wan to invite you tomorrow (Jan 17th at 6pm) to the Boston-gathering at MIT.

Details can be found at Meetup/Boston/Wikipedia_22th_Anniversary_Celebration

Hope I can see you tomorrow — <span style="font-family:Trendy, Tempus Sans Itc;">Johannes  Kalliauer  - contrib. 20:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Residence halls at the University of San Francisco for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Residence halls at the University of San Francisco 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/Residence halls at the University of San Francisco until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished. ElKevbo (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia US Mountain West online meeting
Wikipedia users in the United States Mountain West and High Plains will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 14, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the history, articles, or photographs of our region is encouraged to attend.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia US Mountain West online meeting 05/09/2023
Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, May 9, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the history, geography, articles, maps, or photographs of the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Koch Institute logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Koch Institute logo.png. 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) 17:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia US Mountain West online meeting 08/08/2023
Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, August 8, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in articles, history, geography, maps, or photographs of the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. We may try to organize one or more Wiknics. Guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

US Mountain West online meeting November 14
Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, November 14, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our . Thanks.

-MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for University of Central Florida
University of Central Florida has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

U.S. Mountain West Online Meeting
Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 13, 2024, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our . Thanks.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia U.S. Mountain West Online Meeting
Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, May 14, 2024, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our . Thanks.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Rescheduled online meeting of the Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West 05/21/2024
The online meeting of the Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West originally scheduled for May 14 has been rescheduled for 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, May 21, 2024, at meet.google.com/wbg-wgws-sbj. Please see our new meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our . Thanks. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)