Racepacket (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
Hello, thanks for your message. I'm not aware of any vandalism war between the Quill and Dagger and Sphinx head pages (though the assertion does bring back some strong Ithaca memories) as I'm not an editor on the former page. However, whatever contretemps might lie between editors on the two pages, it should not prohibit good faith edits from those not involved in the dispute. Otherwise, both pages remain strangely "locked" to edits except from those who assert a degree of ownership inimical to the WP project. As long as edits are productive and verifiable, they should stay. If you believe the page should have a degree of official protection, the formal WP administrative channels provide varying degrees of protection, though of course it is exceedingly rare to fully lock down a page from edits; even the Dick Cheney and Barack Obama articles, targets of far more contentious editing than those of Cornell societies, remain only semi-protected. Truth be told, I fail to see how listing the date and fuller sense of the NYT attribution might be considered vandalism in any sense. I continue to restore the date because it provides historical context to the Times' eighty year-old statement. It's akin to the difference between "The federal government believes that baseball should be 'exempt from anti-trust regulations'" and "In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, held that baseball, 'not trade in the traditional sense of the word,' was exempt from anti-trust regulations." Clearly, the latter helpfully assigns an agent and provides a historical context. Thanks much. --[[User:Vaudedoc|Vaudedoc]] ([[User talk:Vaudedoc|talk]]) 16:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
Hello, thanks for your message. I'm not aware of any vandalism war between the Quill and Dagger and Sphinx head pages (though the assertion does bring back some strong Ithaca memories) as I'm not an editor on the former page. However, whatever contretemps might lie between editors on the two pages, it should not prohibit good faith edits from those not involved in the dispute. Otherwise, both pages remain strangely "locked" to edits except from those who assert a degree of ownership inimical to the WP project. As long as edits are productive and verifiable, they should stay. If you believe the page should have a degree of official protection, the formal WP administrative channels provide varying degrees of protection, though of course it is exceedingly rare to fully lock down a page from edits; even the Dick Cheney and Barack Obama articles, targets of far more contentious editing than those of Cornell societies, remain only semi-protected. Truth be told, I fail to see how listing the date and fuller sense of the NYT attribution might be considered vandalism in any sense. I continue to restore the date because it provides historical context to the Times' eighty year-old statement. It's akin to the difference between "The federal government believes that baseball should be 'exempt from anti-trust regulations'" and "In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, held that baseball, 'not trade in the traditional sense of the word,' was exempt from anti-trust regulations." Clearly, the latter helpfully assigns an agent and provides a historical context. Thanks much. --[[User:Vaudedoc|Vaudedoc]] ([[User talk:Vaudedoc|talk]]) 16:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
==Racepacket== |
|||
For your information, four University of Miami editors have started [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket]]. [[User:Racepacket|Racepacket]] ([[User talk:Racepacket|talk]]) 11:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:38, 20 October 2009
Sphinx Head Society
I've cleaned up the article by removing some red links and NN-children of famous cornellians, and making a bunch of other changes, but it needs a lot of sources to prove these folks where in the society, and I'd kill out any speculation that isn't cited. That kind of thing doesn't help its case for being save. I'd find those sources quickly. cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Per your nomination, 13 May, 2008, I am commencing a Good Article review. Apologies for the length of time, but reviewers are in short supply. You may want to watch the review page over the next few days. Because of a bit of an administrative snafu, some editors have already commented on the content of the article and their commentary is in a number of places:
- Yes, it is odd that the article status is being reassessed when the review has barely commenced, but that is an oddity arising from the administrative mixup.
- There is a new review process proposal currently being evaluated by Good article project participants where a number of aspects of reviewing articles merge into a single pipeline, an "open review." Essentially,the article evaluation is automatically on hold for at least three days, permitting collaboration, mentoring, gathering of second opinions and the like; the lead reviewer, myself in this case, may extend this review period to ensure an adequate review. While this is not the offical process yet, I will provisionally try it with this review. The earliest date that I might close this review would be 16:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC). Until that time, please feel free to undertake improvements and encourage others to do so. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Closed the review. Status, fail. Thank you for pulling the article out of AfD last December. As discussed on review page, there's still a lot of work to be done. I do want you to know that if you feel that I've dealt with this article unfairly, you can bring the matter to Good Article Review page and they will be a patient audience for your concerns. Thank you for introducing me to this rather mysterious aspect of Cornellian culture. Take care and happy editing. Gosgood (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Response to Request for Help
There are at least 26 33 more Sphinx Head alumni who are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. Your database is somewhat inaccurate and may not include some of these names, although they were indeed members. I am potentially willing to help you with the page if it survives the deletion review. Cornell2010 (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you may have me mistaken for someone else. Cornell2010 (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I know who you mean. There is no such thing as "low profile" on Wikipedia. Now that your page is created, it will immediately begin being indexed by Google and many other sites. The longer it stays, the more Google hits it will get, the more Wikipedia clones will duplicate it, etc. Cornell2010 (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Cornell Wikipedia Meetup?
I will be attending Reunion on June 6-8, and I thought we could organize a Wikipedia gathering. Perhaps immediately following the Quill and Dagger and Sphinx Head breakfasts on Sunday morning. Are you interested? Racepacket (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppet stupidity
Hi Cornell1890, I see you have been falsely labled as a sockpuppet like I have, I fully agree with your points on the "collegiate secret society page" the article now posted- to broad and not acceptable. I left some additional comments on the talk page of that article- you may like to respondSchooldoc (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- One should note that checkuser has shown Schooldoc (talk · contribs) to be one of the twenty-odd socks used by Mctrain (talk · contribs) for serial hoaxing and AfD vote stacking: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Societyfinalclubs. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Priory of Sion Peer Review
Hello. You would be interested in participating in the peer review of the Priory of Sion article? --Loremaster (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Response to request to refrain from editing Sphinx Head article
Hello, thanks for your message. I'm not aware of any vandalism war between the Quill and Dagger and Sphinx head pages (though the assertion does bring back some strong Ithaca memories) as I'm not an editor on the former page. However, whatever contretemps might lie between editors on the two pages, it should not prohibit good faith edits from those not involved in the dispute. Otherwise, both pages remain strangely "locked" to edits except from those who assert a degree of ownership inimical to the WP project. As long as edits are productive and verifiable, they should stay. If you believe the page should have a degree of official protection, the formal WP administrative channels provide varying degrees of protection, though of course it is exceedingly rare to fully lock down a page from edits; even the Dick Cheney and Barack Obama articles, targets of far more contentious editing than those of Cornell societies, remain only semi-protected. Truth be told, I fail to see how listing the date and fuller sense of the NYT attribution might be considered vandalism in any sense. I continue to restore the date because it provides historical context to the Times' eighty year-old statement. It's akin to the difference between "The federal government believes that baseball should be 'exempt from anti-trust regulations'" and "In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, held that baseball, 'not trade in the traditional sense of the word,' was exempt from anti-trust regulations." Clearly, the latter helpfully assigns an agent and provides a historical context. Thanks much. --Vaudedoc (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Racepacket
For your information, four University of Miami editors have started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket. Racepacket (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)