User talk:Ncsanc16-HCF14

James Samuel Coleman
This is just my opinion, but you simply don't write as well as what is already in the article. I'm no expert copy-editor, but that's the plain truth. I'll try to add back the part you added that had a source. Feel free to revert my edit, but my loyalty isn't to any one person who wants to try their hand at editing, my loyalty is to the quality of Wikipedia. Thanks for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your message on my talk page. I looked over your edits carefully, and they were mostly cosmetic. The Coleman article was already well written, and your edits seemed to add only sizzle, but no steak. For example, one sentence read:

"Coleman received his bachelor's degree in Chemical Engineering from Purdue University in 1949, and received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1955, where he came under the influence of Paul Lazarsfeld."

You changed it to:

"Coleman received his bachelor's degree in Chemical Engineering from Purdue University in 1949, and received his Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1955. During his time at Columbia University, Coleman came under the influence of Paul Lazarsfeld."

How did this enhance the quality of the article? I mean really?

And the one new source you added was from Encyclopedia Britannica. Surely your esteemed professor didn't suggest you obtain your research data from an Encyclopedia?

Wikipedia editors are very generous in helping newcomers, but they are also brutally honest. My experience has also led me to believe that most will care far more about the quality of the project than would about a university student using Wikipedia as a means to achieve a C- in some course.

There are a number of dispute resolution mechanism on Wikipedia, and tons of ways to get a second opinion. As well, there is nothing stopping you from "reverting" my edit, afterwhich I will seek out that second opinion.

Please take a moment to look at Community portal, or look at the link to the Teahouse (above). Again, thanks for writing. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If you really want to help out on an education-related article, the John Hattie article could use a makeover and some expansion. Thanks.  Magnolia677 (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

---

I understand that you may see my current contributions as completely cosmetic, because they are. As a part of my plan to enhance Coleman's page, I began with minor edits to the current content. As you point out, I haven't really changed any content of the page, just the way it is structured. I do not see a problem with this, as it enhances the work that is already there.

I do plan on adding in more content to the page, but wonder about its success due to your constant reverting of my changes. This is the sole reason I have not entered the new information I hope to include on the page.

Also, I do not understand the need for reverting all of my changes. Yes, you may disagree with some of them, but surely you cannot believe they all need to be taken away?

I appreciate the "brutal honesty", however I don't think it is completely warranted. I have contributed minor changes that make the page easier to read and understand. I also believe they make the page simply look better. Regardless of your ability to revert my changes, I will continue to contribute them. I am dedicated to Coleman's page being the best that it can be, and offering the most valid information possible.

As far as using Encyclopedia Britannica as a source, I do not see anything wrong with that. I also have many new pieces of information to add from books Coleman has written himself, as well as books written about him. You can expect to see these contributions within the next few days.

Ncsanc16-HCF14 (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Ncsanc16-HCF14Ncsanc16-HCF14 (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , here's a trip down memory lane for you--and I'll remind you of this edit of theirs as well. I think I know who the professor at the prestigious college is (ahem), and I think they've been sending students into Wikipedia since at least 2014, without ever getting in touch with the education project or anyone else, and without teaching their students important rules of behavior. This is actually one of only a few accounts that realized that when editors talk to them, they need to respond. I just blocked the entire range to prevent all those accounts from further disruption; if you want to get an idea of the scale, here is the list so far: User:Drmies/College of the Holy Cross. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Holy cow. That's a lot of students. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello, Ncsanc16-HCF14 and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. If you haven't done so already, we encourage you to go through our training for students.

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Please also read this helpful advice for students.

Before you create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not.

Your instructor or professor may wish to set up a course page, and if your class doesn't already have one please tell your instructor about that. It is highly recommended that you place this text:  on the talk page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and aid your communication with them.

We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished! GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)