User talk:NGCR6199

Thank you for your comment. I reviewed your concerns and I reply below.

The statements being questioned are: "Consistently ranked as America's ‘dream school’ by high school seniors and their parents, Stanford’s undergraduate program has become the nation's most difficult to get into, more competitive than the Ivy League.[15][16][17][18] This, combined with Stanford's top-ranked admission yield, has made the annual competition for admission intense, but once admitted, every student has access to generous financial aid (including free tuition for families with income under $125,000.)"

The issue being considered is 'boosterism' as it pertains to net neutrality. Boosterism is blatant promotion or 'talking up' something or some place solely for the purpose of positive publicity. It is shameless and has a negative connotation.

Thus, under consideration are two points 1) the quality of the information, and 2) the language used to convey this information.

To determine the neutrality and impartiality of my footnoted sources, consider whether or not the information is current and that it is stated as fact in the articles with the sole or predominate intention of informing its reader, free from personal opinion (one way or the other.) Consider the credibility of the authors I’ve chosen and their respective publications. I believe its largely indisputable that the purpose of each of these articles is to inform its readers of certain data and to convey these data in an objective style. Each of the sources are highly reputable as news agencies. These sources are: 1. USA Today (largest newspaper in America, by circulation) 2. New York Times 3. US News and World Report 4. Business Insider 5. CNBC 6. Slate Additionally, Stanford-located sources of current admission statistics are: 7. Stanford News 8. The Stanford Daily

The respective authors of these referenced sources have both expertise and a publication record (in these specific peer-reviewed publications as well as others of equal repute) in the field of higher education. The publishers of these articles are well-known and respected. The information is accurate and cited from verifiable fact made available to the public and available in other sources, such as news and scholarly articles. These news sources are neutral and impartial.

SOURCES FOR THIS POST AND SPECIFIC URL'S: http://college.usatoday.com/2017/04/05/the-class-of-2021-is-shattering-ivy-league-admissions-records/ https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/education/americas-it-school-look-west-harvard.html?_r=0 https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate http://www.businessinsider.com/stanfords-acceptance-rate-for-the-class-of-2021-harder-to-get-into-than-ivy-league-2017-4 http://www.cnbc.com/2014/05/30/to-young-minds-of-today-harvard-is-the-stanford-of-the-east.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/04/harvard_vs_stanford_america_has_a_new_dream_college.html http://news.stanford.edu/2017/03/31/offers-admission-2050-students-around-world/ http://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/03/31/stanford-admit-rate-falls-to-4-65-percent/

With this said, I’m more concerned about something else. The opposite of boosterism is detraction, selective obstruction, demotion by omitting or playing down certain facts, however one feels about them. I maintain that prospective students, faculty, staff, and administrators, to say nothing of formal and informal researchers, are coming to this page to glean key information about, among other things, the institution’s (Stanford) so-called 'prestige', which is clearly pointed out in the first paragraph as being a noteworthy point. I’m referring of course to the final sentence of the first paragraph (which must have been approved as being unbiased, neutral, and not keenly promotional) is: "Stanford's academic renown, wealth, and proximity to Silicon Valley has made it one of the world's most prestigious universities.” Indeed, US News for its annual college rankings uses the ‘selectivity metric’ as one of its measures. See: https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/ranking-criteria-and-weights. In fact, I object to the word “wealth” being used in this sentence as it connotes promotion and ‘bragging’. The correct word should be: resources or financial resources; best word yet because of specificity: endowment.

Second, I concur the language I used to convey these data was rather high-flown. I propose this change:

WIKI ON 6/19 AFTER I EDITED MY REJECTED 6/18 POST: Stanford has the most selective undergraduate program in America and receives the highest percentage of admitted students who enroll (admission yield.)

July 2017
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You have a history of attack other editors and pretending to know what you're doing on here. Please read post on your talk page. NGCR6199 (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Barnard College. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Barnard College, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Barnard College was changed by NGCR6199 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.879221 on 2017-07-15T14:28:54+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Columbia University. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Columbia University while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All of my edits on the Columbia University page have been made from my account. You are a special kind of moron - one that disregards common sense in favor of cuddling his damaged and insecure ego. Not strange for a Columbia grad. You must be one of those mid 1970s - mid 1980s Columbians because boy are you stupid. NGCR6199 (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)