User talk:Seasaltcoffee

You need to learn to read. My edit of 06-12-13 at 23:07 prior to your edit of 06-13-13 at 03:50 clearly said "259," not "290." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northwestern_University_School_of_Law&diff=559667748&oldid=559640171. Also, the language concerning "tied for sixth" is just my modification of prior language that failed to include the fact that NU Law shared sixth place with several other schools. The original inclusion was not mine, and it makes no difference to me whether it's included or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.209.63.54 (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're really struggling with basic reading comprehension. The link displaying the edit differences clearly shows that you whined about the inclusion of "290" instead of "259" AFTER I had already included the correct info in my last edit. The issue was utterly moot when you complained about it. What's so difficult for you to understand here? I mistakenly included "290" in my first edit, you then corrected it while also deleting plenty of new and pertinent information in your subsequent edit, and I ultimately retained the correct number of "259" BEFORE you whined about it. The fact that I made one factual error, later corrected, in including new information does not invalidate the inclusion of the remaining accurate and cited information. (And please remember that you reverted edits to uncited information about the "top 2%" until I informed you that a 170 was no longer a 98th percentile score. Only then did you seek out a source, and a pretty shoddy one at that.)

And your initial message said nothing about whether further edits were "advisable" or whether we "should" do something or not. You said, "Do not edit any further until we receive word directly from Wikipedia." For that reason, I responded in the manner above.

Finally, let me be more clear about the extent of my responsibilities for editing other pages: it does not become incumbent upon me to add information to ANY other page simply because I've added expanded information to one page. And yet, when the section structure is similar, or when the existing language makes for easy substitution, I have added the same information to numerous other pages, including the pages of "top" law schools. The fact that I'm not presently interested in restructuring and adding sections to pages that do not currently easily accommodate the new information does not limit me in adding the language to one or more other pages. The fact that different pages will at times be inconsistent with one another in structure and extent of development is part-and-parcel of the evolving nature of the Wikipedia project. Another editor is free to add to other pages so that they may resemble another page with expanded information; another editor is not free, however, to remove accurate, cited information from one page in order to make it more "consistent" with less well-developed pages, as you did. Also, the idea that the obligation you're insisting on (which doesn't exist) would simply stop with the top 14 law schools is ridiculous; the pages on or near the border of the stopping point would obviously need to be amended as well (schools ranked, say, 15-18), lest this dubious risk of readers being mislead persist. This would ultimately mean that an editor has the responsibility to expand ALL pages, since a "border region" around the stopping point would always otherwise exist. 108.209.63.54 (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome / Northwestern University School of Law
Hi Seasaltcoffee, welcome to Wikipedia! Do you happen to be employed or otherwise professionally affiliated with the Northwestern University School of Law? In that case, please have a look at this advice. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that you chose to ignore this question while continuing your edits.
 * Please do not delete sourced information without explanation without reference, as you did here
 * Please do not cite references that don't support the information they are cited for, as you did here
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I will reply to both of your points by addressing them separately:

1. In regards to deleted "sourced information" that has been referenced. The deleted fact/statement with respect to the "leading to the most debt" is true, but it is an objective fact that portrays the Northwestern University School of Law in a subjective manner. Debt, has a negative connotation; Indeed a reference citing over $100,000 in debt can be substantial for a normal reader (one who is not familiar with the legal community and starting salaries). If Wikipedia is in fact a forum and source where the general public can acquire objective information, I strongly request you to add the SAME debt fact to all of the other top law schools. You can search this yourself, try Harvard Law, Yale Law, Duke Law, Cornell Law -- all of these pages do not show the debt level fact. It would be only fair for NU to also have this fact removed, OR have all of the other top law schools with this fact as well (such a measure would be the closest thing to being objective and impartial).

Furthermore, I believe that the debt fact is misleading within the context of the overall information provided on this page. Law school debt is not a fact that you can leave alone in itself. In order to receive the broader picture, you MUST provide additional information on salary levels, the average time it takes to pay off this debt level, so on and so forth. The concern is that the general public receives information about Northwestern Law on this website and in turn, form a biased opinion about the university (again referring back to the negative connotation that "debt" has). Why does this matter? It matters because (1) attorneys rely upon the general public as their clients and if their clients perceive a somewhat negative view of the university, it can hurt their business unnecessarily so. Why not give the other top law schools this disadvantage as well? That reference did not single out Northwestern, it included other law schools as well, which I will mention that it is not shown on their respective pages; (2) Prospective students also rely upon Wikipedia when deciding which law schools to apply to. Debt is frightening and you have put Northwestern at another disadvantage when prospective students have the misconception that attending Northwestern Law would land them in more debt than attending a peer school. As a result of that, this site has possibly contributed to depriving the university of some of the most amazing students, which in turn, affects their overall rankings.

Collectively, I feel that the minor removal was justified.

2. In regards to the additional information provided on the page with respect to (1) salary and (2) rankings. Those statements were fully substantiated by the references. Northwestern is and always has been part of the "T-14" law schools, a prestigious group of 14 law schools that have always been in the US News Report rankings. In regards to salary, Northwestern has always had its median starting salary in the private sector at $160,000. Again, I would like to reiterate to you that salary information is both provided on comparable schools like Georgetown Law wikipedia page and Duke Law wikipedia page.

Ranking references: http://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/biblio/1002/145871/doc/slspublic/lomio_etal-rp20.pdf http://www.top-law-schools.com/rankings.html http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings

Salary references: http://www.top-law-schools.com/northwestern-law-school.html  -- "Quick Reference" at the bottom of page. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/career/statistics/ http://www.law.northwestern.edu/career/statistics/2011.html http://www.law.northwestern.edu/career/statistics/2010.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasaltcoffee  (talk • contribs)  17:29, 10 June 2013(UTC)

Sign your comment
Can you sign your comment and stop reverting SineBot's edits please, thanks. --AshFR (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Duke Law Facebook Logo Picture.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Duke Law Facebook Logo Picture.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. <span style="border:1px solid black; background-color: #EFCA37; background-image: -ms-radial-gradient(center top, circle closest-side, #FFAA3B 0%, #E3B536 0%, #EFCA37 100%); background-image: -moz-radial-gradient(center top, circle closest-side, #FFAA3B 0%, #E3B536 0%, #EFCA37 100%); background-image: -o-radial-gradient(center top, circle closest-side, #FFAA3B 0%, #E3B536 0%, #EFCA37 100%); background-image: -webkit-gradient(radial, center top, 0, center top, 0, color-stop(0, #FFAA3B), color-stop(0, #E3B536), color-stop(1, #EFCA37)); background-image: -webkit-radial-gradient(center top, circle closest-side, #FFAA3B 0%, #E3B536 0%, #EFCA37 100%); background-image: radial-gradient(circle closest-side at center top, #FFAA3B 0%, #E3B536 0%, #EFCA37 100%);padding:4px;"> Blurred   Lines  20:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)