Talk:List of Ivy League business schools

message: This is in response to Gekko's reversions.
 
First a little background on Gekko/MBAguy. The user MBAguy submitted an AfD nom for this article - his nom failed. He argued with people who voted to keep the article. He also tried to undermine the voting process by making 6 consecutive vandalisms to this article in the middle of the voting process, hoping to sway the vote in his favor. His vandalism included spraying the article all over with rankings talk, instead of adding a link to rankings in the article's External Links section. This article is about schools, not rankings. One suggestion was that MBAguy create a new School Rankings article, and then link to it. He ignored any constructive suggestions.
During the nom process, if your vote didn't agree with his AfD nom, MBAguy didn't want to hear it. He told one voter with whom he disagreed that "Ivy League is devoid of any significance." My own misfortune was that I had the audacity to vote "Keep", and MBAguy didn't like that. He responded angrily to my vote and wouldn't let it go. He said Wikipedia should ban this article because "Ivy League" equates to "boosterism". When MBAguy decided he had embarrassed himself enough, he edited the vote discussion to remove his responses to those whose votes he didn't like. Result was that his AfD nom failed.
Right after MBAguy's nom failure, a user named Gekko began reverting article changes so that MBAguy's vandalisms reappear in this article and other users' new content are expunged. Gekko's user page shows his account was created April 15, 2006 and within a few short hours, he's already rv'ing this article. Newbie Gekko's rv comments show he's very familiar with deleting content, rv's, policies, discussion pages, procedures, nominations, etc. This all makes Gekko/MBAguy's sleazy tactics very suspicious.  After tangling with voters in the nom process, he's now tangling with those who want to clean up the article to remove MBAguy's vandalism. His actions show he intends to continue vandalizing and junking up this article. Gekko/MBAguy's habit of putting rankings stuff all over the article, makes the article worse, not better, which is his clear intention. We can probably expect Gekko/MBAguy or whichever user name he creates next to submit a new AfD for this article within a few months. GO WHARTON 18:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should probably just delete your rant as libellous against me, but I'm sure someone else will instead.  As I said on your talk page (which you deleted), I am not user MBAguy. I have been a Wikipedia user since last year (not since this month, as you lie about me) and seem to have been drawn into some bizarre edit war you're having with that user. Please leave me out of it, but if you want to delete useful content, please discuss it here and reach consensus before doing so. - Gekko 03:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really want to discuss rankings graffiti/vandalism? Everything you said above is of a personal nature. Please stick to the rankings vandalism topic. You're rv'ing the article again, saying you want a discussion of rankings graffiti "usefulness" while refusing real discussion. Why did you delete and revert (without discussion, by the way) the new content paragraph that was added, and why do you want to plaster rankings up and down this article? The article was spray-painted with rankings by MBAguy in the middle of the nom voting process. After the nom process completed, an edit was made to tone down the rankings emphasis, but you quickly did lots of rv's to delete all new content (without discussion) and stick all of MBAguy's rankings graffiti back in. Why? GO WHARTON 15:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion for Gekko: why don't you add a link in the External Links section to your favorite ranking, or you could create a new School Rankings article and put a link to your new article at the bottom of this article. After all, this is not a rankings article. GO WHARTON 15:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please note that MBAguy/Gekko is now reordering the messages in this discussion so that he can force everyone to read his message first (even though it's not first in chronological order). (Page refactored to original order by JDoorjam     Talk.))  It's another of his bullying tactics in his war against this article. His bold face "NOTE TO ALL: READ" is MBAguy's way of screaming, "how dare anyone vote down MBAguy/Gekko's AfD." He is using lots of sleazy tactics to do an end around of the AfD voting process. His goal over time is to overload this article with his forced rankings talk, a little now, more later. Then he'll use his rankings-saturated version of this article as the reason to resubmit his AfD within the next few months. This article was neutral (see the "17:12, 9 March 2006" version) before MBAguy/Gekko declared his war against it, trying to force everyone to accept his POV and his extreme bias against the Ivy League. MBAguy/Gekko's history and tactics are very clear when one reviews the article revision history, the AfD voting discussion and history, and this article discussion history. MBAguy/Gekko is still beating his war drums ... GO WHARTON 17:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Crazy but true - MBAguy/Gekko has again escalated his war against the Ivy League. MBAguy/Gekko is now going throughout the Wikipedia encyclopedia and deleting all references, links, and mentions of Ivy League that he can find. Seems maybe MBAguy/Gekko wants to eradicate the Ivy League from civilization. GO WHARTON 17:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To MBAguy/Gekko: Your first involvement with this article was to submit an AfD. In your nomination, you harped that an article with Ivy League in it must be an "agenda," and that it must mean all Ivy Leaguers think they're "superior to others." However, none of your remarks are supported by the long-standing neutral tone of this article before you recently blasted onto the scene (see first message in this discussion for details). Your AfD nom was voted down, so you switched to your alter-ego Gekko. Under that name, you have the same arrogant tone and insistently reverted all new content (without discussion) in order to restore your article vandalisms during the voting process. I've constructively suggested often that you could put a link to your favorite rankings in the External Links section. I've also suggested that you could create a School Rankings article. You could then place a link to your new rankings article at the bottom of this article's page. Instead of discussing those possibilities, you switched back to MBAguy and wrote the above "NOTE TO ALL" which is the same harping about Ivy League, your personal issues, and boosterism that you stuck into the voting discussion. Seems as though you're trying to do an end-around of the AfD process. GO WHARTON 19:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoah, miss a few weeks, and look what happens! The article is in good shape though. MBAguy, looks like you and GO WHARTON have reached a compromise? GO WHARTON, I have no idea which of your messages on this page are actually directed to me, can you please clarify? --- Gekko 03:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Gekko's reversions

message: (Please see the discussion for this article which gives the history of Gekko/MBAguy's recent assaults on this article.) (Please also see the resulting discussion of MBAguy/Gekko's recent AfD which was overwhelmingly voted down by our fellow wikipedians.) Now, he seems to be attempting an end around of the AfD process. Prior to Gekko/MBAguy's recent declaration of war on this article, the article was neutral, as can be seen in the "17:12 9 March 2006" version of this article. Since Apr. 3, 2006, however, an onslaught of sleazy tactics, graffiti, and vandalism has been perpetrated on this article, coincident with the arrival of MBAguy/Gekko. Regrettably, Gekko/MBAguy continues using his typical approach of vandalizing and complaining about the article, while shunning discussion on the merits and refusing to discuss many constructive suggestions offered to him. Gekko/MBAguy is clearly not interested in improving this article. His scheme appears to be to continually mutilate this article, so that he can resubmit his AfD in the upcoming months, using his mutilated version of the article as the reason for deletion of this article - all because of his belief that the term "Ivy League" equates to "boosterism," as he has said. His extreme tactics against this article do not seem to be in the Wikipedia spirit. Since MBAguy/Gekko has shown he has no interest in civil discourse, perhaps it would help if a third party would step in and help out here. GO WHARTON 16:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You sir are the one not interested in debate. But I don't have to tell you that, you know it. You were the first one to start reverting legitimate additions to tone down the NPOV of the article as "grafitti".  Tell me, how exactly does adding objective rankings information represent a "POV"? Meanwhile, deleting it and adding puffery phrasing such as you have is clearly POV. MBAguy 21:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Please note that MBAguy/Gekko is now deliberately reordering the messages in this discussion.) MBAguy/Gekko, you have sunk to another new low in your all-out war against this article. Why are you reordering the messages in this discussion? You are again violating Wikipedia editing standards and making a mockery of Wikipedia discussion. Your latest bullying tactic of changing the order of the messages in this talk discussion, so that your message appears at the top of this page even though it's not the first chronological message in this discussion, shows your willingness to use any sleazy tactic in your all-out assault against this article. A number of constructive suggestions have been offered to you but you have ignored every constructive suggestion. You refuse to discuss anything. Remember, you initiated your war on this article when you tried to rig the Wikipedia AfD voting process because you didn't like the voting results (see the details in my previous messages above - well, my messages should be "above" unless you've again reordered all the messages in this discussion). Only one of your two alter-egos appeared during the voting discussion. But just after your AfD was voted down, both of your alter-egos, MBAguy and Gekko, went ballistic on this article, with the same arrogance and same language. Rigging the AfD voting, repetitive rv'ing without discussion, alter-egos, reordering discussion messages, which sleazy tactic will you use next? GO WHARTON 15:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Gekko/MBAguy's NPOV tag

message: # You have to take a careful look through this page and the edit history to understand what GO WHARTON is doing. He is attempting to create a meme of "Ivy League business schools" in order to cause people to associate the connotations of "Ivy League" more closely with certain business schools.  He has systematically gone through articles, both Ivy League and non-Ivy League, adding links and phrases such as "it is one of the six Ivy League business schools" as though this was some mark of distinction. Of course, we know that when it comes to business schools, nobody thinks in terms of which are Ivy League and which are not; Stanford has long been considered one of the top schools, if not the top, and it is not in the Ivy League.  Any such references to this kind of information and swiftly and thoroughly deleted by GO WHARTON. 
# In addition to these acts, he is also attempting to appear reasonable by marking his edits as reversions of vandalism and constructive criticism. READ THOSE EDITS! It is quite clear that they are nothing of the sort, and are merely reversions back to his POV.
# This article survived an AFD vote because there wasn't anything factually wrong with it, and some people found the ranking useful.  But GO WHARTON is using this article as a propaganda piece to create a new meme of "Ivy League business schools" where no such meme currently exists, as borne out by a simple Google search.  This is dangerous and allowing it sets a bad precedent, so I'm trying to control and fight it.  I could use some help!
# The motivation for his actions seem quite clear. He is likely affiliated with one of the lower ranked Ivy League business schools (Cornell, Yale, or Dartmouth) and is trying to wrap his school in the Ivy garb to improve its perception.  The usage of the username GO WHARTON should itself signal this, since a Wharton student has nothing to gain by doing so (i.e. this username is an example of his misdirection).  NOTE: based on user creation date and edit history, it appears that GO WHARTON is a sockpuppet of JDMBAHopeful, a Yale School of Management student/alum.
# Additional note: look at the ridiculous number of redirects and templates he has created to promote his cause. It would be great if an admin could delete these. Thanks!
:::# Ivy league business schools (redirect page)
:::# IVY LEAGUE BUSINESS SCHOOLS (redirect page)
:::# IVY LEAGUE BUSINESS SCHOOL (redirect page)
:::# Ivy league business school (redirect page)
:::# Ivy league mba (redirect page)
:::# IVY LEAGUE MBA (redirect page)
:::# Ivy league mba program (redirect page)
:::# IVY LEAGUE MBA PROGRAMS (redirect page)
:::# Ivy League Business Schools (redirect page)
:::# Ivy League M.B.A. (redirect page)
:::# IVY LEAGUE M.B.A. (redirect page)
:::# Template:Ivy League business schools
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MBAguy (talk • contribs) .
::Thanks for adding. MBAguy 21:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote above, it appears that GO WHARTON is a Yale SOM student, which makes some sense. Of the schools I mentioned above, I think Tuck is the least in need of wrapping itself in the Ivy garb. MBAguy 21:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not matter where he studied. Speculating on this assumes bad faith. We should ignore the perceived interests of contributors and focus on facts and references. --Duncan 18:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think bad faith is pretty clear when a user is deliberately LYING about his edits (e.g. reverting the rankings information, and labelling it a reversion of vandalism, stating that I'm removing all Ivy League references from Wikipedia, where I'm actually toning down promotion of the Ivy League BUSINESS SCHOOLS article).  But finally, note that this is a sophisticated Wikipedia user who frequently talks about the Wikipedia spirit, but this handle was created to invent and promote the concept of "Ivy League business schools"; see:  MBAguy 01:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right, the definition of vandalism I was using was loose enough to be quite incorrect, but I'm not sure exactly what to call reverting changes without discussion and then mislabelling that edit as a reversion of vandalism.  In any case, I'm not sure how you would suggest I revert his deletion of material constantly without appearing "argumentative"? MBAguy 21:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Systematic Vandalism / Mischief by [[User:GO WHARTON|GO WHARTON]]

message: WOAH! Miss a few days of this discussion and you miss a lot! MBAguy tried to get away with his new tactic of creating the previous far-fetched section without signing it, but fortunately someone inserted above the fact that MBAguy did it. He habitually continues to bang his anti-Ivy League war drums. His titling of the previous section, "Vandalism / Mischief", is hypocritical. As described earlier, MBAguy/Gekko tried to rig the vote during his AfD. Then, his new alter-ego Gekko was rv'ing Ivy League references throughout wikipedia, without discussion as usual. MBAguy was reprimanded by Harvard students in the edit history of the Harvard University article for his belligerent tactic of rv'ing that article without discussion, same thing he did here. Then MBAguy/Gekko redirected his anti-Ivy League venom to this article. His AfD nom for this article was voted down, and his POV tag was removed by others after a small modification, despite his yells of "fix this mess!" However, no "mess" existed before MBAguy/Gekko showed up and began tampering with the Afd voting process, talking conspiracy theories about Ivy League memes(?) and propaganda, crystal-balling how GO WHARTON might be a student at "Cornell, Yale, or Dartmouth," detailing his paranoid delusions of why wikipedians voted down his AfD, deleting Ivy League references he finds on wikipedia, on and on it goes. MBAguy presumes authority by saying below, "As an MBA student at a top (non-Ivy) program, I can tell you that...." In truth, normal students don't talk that way: Where do you go to college? "I go to a top non-Ivy."(?) MBAguy also castigated someone who voted against his AfD nom by telling her, "Ivy League is devoid of any significance." The External Links section includes a recent Financial Times article that discusses "Ivy League business schools". So will MBAguy attempt to shut down the Financial Times presses, charging that they too are guilty of perpetuating the "Ivy League business schools meme," according to his conspiracy theory? Possibly, MBAguy/Gekko will write a best-seller called "The Gekko Code" in which he traces the origins of his Ivy League conspiracy meme theory all the way to Nopus Nei or to the president, the first MBA president (from Harvard). MBAguy/Gekko's arrogance, anti-social behavior, and belligerence are unhappily feeding on themselves. GO WHARTON 18:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above, you continue to lie and misrepresent what you're doing, so it's difficult to have a civil discussion with you.  My comment above addresses everything you're trying to do here. MBAguy 19:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, nobody believes that you tried to have a "civil discussion". You made no attempt at it. When you first showed up and started your AfD nom, you defiantly argued with those whose votes you didn't like. That's civil? You also ignored compromises and constructive suggestions from a number of people. How is that civil? You clearly have contempt for the wikipedia democratic voting process, that's why you're still trying to do an end-around of the AfD process. A levelheaded person would have let the AfD voting process naturally unfold, but not you. A balanced person would have responded to that AfD outcome by thinking: fine, others believe this article might be useful so I'll move on. Not you. As noted above, Harvard students also reprimanded you because of your belligerent tactic of rv'ing the Harvard University article without discussion. You clearly dislike the concept of consensus, so now you're acting like a little dictator, you want the article deleted, and you want it gone now. You can stop your cock-and-bull story about how "civil discussion" means something to you. You are as anti-civil discussion as you are anti-Ivy League, which is saying a lot. GO WHARTON 22:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above, you continue to lie and misrepresent what you're doing, so it's difficult to have a civil discussion with you.  My comment above addresses everything you're trying to do here. MBAguy 01:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MBAguy, you've refused "civil discussion." At least 10 different wikipedians, so far, have given you constructive suggestions, offered reasonable compromises, and (having experienced your typical rebukes of their opinions) have asked you to stop your persistently boorish behavior. Further, you've adamantly disagreed with nearly everyone who has given an opinion in this discussion. You have no interest in compromise or consensus and your behavior is anti-Wikipedian. My comments at the beginning of this discussion page and in this section address your disrespect for basic Wikipedia standards and show everything you're trying to do here. GO WHARTON 03:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to MBAguy/Gekko's Belligerence

message: It's certainly not familiar to me. The phrase Ivy League actually connotes an athletic association, and the students in the graduate business schools don't play football, or in general participate in the Ivy League per se. (Although as I recall the Harvard Business School does row in the Head of the Charles regatta, and, in an amazing display of arrogance, hubris, or humor, uses the dollar sign as their symbol on their paddles). I've never heard anyone say, "Oh, he went to an Ivy League business school." I don't think of them as a group. People will just say "He has a Harvard MBA" or "He went to Wharton." 
On the other hand... a Google Books search for "Ivy League business school" turns up 19 hits, which is a very respectable number for a Books search. I like Books searches, as they are less trendy, much less easy for people to game via search engine optimization, much less influenced by personal sources such as blobs. For comparison, some other borderline-mimetic phrases are "Harvard of the South," 28 hits, "public Ivies" 14.
So, while I'm frankly still skeptical and not at all sure of the value of these articles, my first quick reality check is that perhaps people really do bracket the "Ivy League business schools" and refer to the group in that way. Hard to believe. Makes about as much sense as "went to an Ivy League engineering school." It's particularly odd since not all of the Ivy League schools even have business schools, and most of them have names that appear to be intended to create mental distance between the B-school and the parent university. I mean, can you imagine anyone saying "Go Wharton Quakers?"
I personally agree with MBAguy that it does appear that GO WHARTON is, for some reason, trying to promote the importance of the idea (or of his own Wikipedia contributions), I can't imagine why. Only GO WHARTON can speak to his or her motivations. I detest the idea of using Wikipedia to promote anything, and when enthusiasm for a limited subject area crosses over into promotion, its gone too far.
But IMHO the redirects are certainly OK in themselves. We are told that "redirects are cheap," If anyone is actually looking for Ivy League business schools they might as well be able to find it. I personally created about eight redirects to Alexander Procofieff de Seversky (because of numerous variations in the spelling and presentation of his name), and there still aren't enough... Dpbsmith (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great points. There are two separate questions here: the first is, does the PHRASE "Ivy League business school" ever get used, and the second is, what does that phrase mean?  As an MBA student at a top (non-Ivy) program, I can tell you that "Ivy League business school"  is almost unheard of (as you note above) but when it is used, it is used by those generally not familiar with business schools to indicate quality in a colloquial way. They would do this the same way they might refer to an "Ivy League education".  Folks in that category could very well also refer to an "Ivy League engineering program", despite how absurd that would sound to those actually familiar with engineering programs and the Ivy League!  Now, what GO WHARTON is trying to do is validate that phrase as a legitimate indicator of quality.  His creation and promotion of this article are exactly analagous to creating an article around "Ivy League engineering programs" and then adding a line to Harvard's main entry that it has "one of six Ivy League engineering programs".  This article is absurd and getting even more absurd as it becomes more NPOV,  which is why I tagged it for deletion in the first place. MBAguy 21:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, let me declare an interest: I studied at the Tuck school at Dartmouth. On the one hand, I do think that some people refer to 'Ivy leage Business schools'. It is as meaningless or meaningful as Ivy League is in any non-athletic context -- which means it still remains quite potent. On the other hand, this page and the redirects seem harmless. No information is untrue in this page, and I oppose removing true information. My major concern is the tone on this Talk page: there are a number of points of Wikipedia's etiquete which are being overlooked. Both parties in this dispute would be wise to stop reverting and start discussing for a week or two. --Duncan 17:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a great deal of respect for Tuck, but while some people there may use that phrase, it is not a common phrase, as evidenced by the fact there are are less then 500 Google hits on "Ivy League business schools", 200 of which are now from Wikipedia thanks to this article! MBAguy 19:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but eighteen Google Books hits on exact phrase "Ivy League business school" is a respectable showing for Google Books, which I like a lot because it isn't influenced by Wikipedia mirrors or "search engine optimization." Another useful test, which I haven't tried yet but am about to, is Google Groups. My rule of thumb is that one "hit" in Groups is worth about five to ten hits on the Web. One could of course influence Groups results by deliberately posting to USENET, people don't usually do that and Groups hits tends to uninflate deliberate self-promotional efforts. Which in any case are not at issue here. Well, anyway, here goes: Google Groups search on exact phrase "Ivy League business school" gives 23 hits. In good accord with your 300 non-Wikipedia Google Web hits. It's a pretty feeble meme, but it's not utterly nonexistent. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think my quarrel is that I don't believe it's a meme at all, just a combination of words whose meaning is exactly the sum of its parts. Just like Pacific Ten engineering schools. Oops, did I just violate WP:BEANS? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 98 Google Books hits on "Ivy League law school" and 22 for exact phrase "Ivy League medical school". There are even 3 for "Ivy League engineering"! MBAguy 08:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Well, does such a meme exist?

message: Why use the U.S. News rankings? The Wall Street Journal rankings are quite different:
 1  	Dartmouth College (Tuck)
 2 	University of Michigan (Ross)
 3 	Carnegie Mellon University (Tepper)
 4 	Northwestern University (Kellogg)
 5 	Yale University
 6 	University of Pennsylvania (Wharton)
 7 	University of California, Berkeley (Haas)
 8 	Columbia University
 9 	University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler)
 10 	University of Southern California (Marshall)
 11 	University of Virginia (Darden)
 12 	Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan)
 13 	University of Chicago
 14 	Harvard University
 15 	Stanford University
As are the Forbes rankings:
   1. Harvard
   2. Columbia
   3. Chicago
   4. Dartmouth (Tuck)
   5. Yale
   6. Penn. (Wharton)
   7. Stanford
   8. UNC (Kenan-Flagler)
   9. N'Western (Kellogg)
  10. Virginia (Darden)
The Economist, which ranks all business schools in the world, has this top five:
 1. University of Navarre
 2. Northwestern University (Kellogg)
 3. Dartmouth College (Tuck)
 4. Stanford
 5. IMD
Why prefer one over the other? --AaronS 15:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason. I suggested above that BusinessWeek and FT rankings could be added.. there is no reason not to also add WSJ and Forbes's rankings. However, U.S. News's yearly list is probably the most well-known ranking of B-schools. And the WSJ and Forbes rankings you quoted are from 2003, we should find updated ones. Rhobite 20:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: U.S. News doesn't have international distribution, unlike the others. These business schools all serve and international base of students, employers and aceademics. I think we should treat all these rankings as being on a par with each other. --Duncan 17:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. News Rankings? 

message: First: it is not necessary to include links to Ivy League business schools in the individual articles about the individual schools, since they are included in the category :Category:Ivy League business schools and have a navigation box at the bottom listing and linking all the Ivy League business schools. Really, it is not necessary to make the point that Harvard Business School is an Ivy League business school in three different ways; that's grotesque overkill.
Second: The edit comment "Since the ILBS page is kept, then so are the links" is incorrect. An AfD decision does not actually mean anything more than that the article title is endorsed; that is, there is consensus that "Ivy League business schools" is an appropriate topic for an article. It is not an endorsement of anything else. AfD is a special procedure because page deletion can only be performed by administrators. Ordinary editing operations are not governed by AfD and are to be worked out collegially between editors. 
An AfD decision to keep an article does not mean that the content of the article is endorsed. It does not mean that the article content cannot be merged into another article and the article converted to a redirect. 
And it certainly does not mean that links to the article in other articles cannot be removed. Those are all ordinary editing procedures to be worked out among editors. 
Whether it is appropriate to include individual links from Harvard Business School to Ivy League business schools, in addition to the navigation box links and the category, is up for discussion like all other matters involving article content, and was not decided by the AfD. All the AfD decided was that Ivy League business schools should not be deleted by an administrator, nothing more. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two comments on the current edit war 

message: User:GO WHARTON is now vandalizing the talk page, changing the section headings and re-ordering comments in order to make the discussion more favorable to him.  I am attempting to revert as he does this, but could use some help.  MBAguy 04:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only changed section headings for sections I started, to match the standard you set in naming your section. Please don't lie by saying someone is "reordering comments," unless you're referring to yourself, because you've deliberately reordered other people's comments a number of times. As I explain above, you're violating wikipedia editing standards again, not that you care about those standards. GO WHARTON 08:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism of talk page by [[User:GO WHARTON]] 

message: Rather than continue to stalk through other articles reverting one another's edits, consider simply leaving the offending edits in place and discussing on the talk pages. If, after exchanging views in a civil manner, you wish to pursue the issue, may I suggest the filing of an RfC rather than continue in an extended revert war. Isopropyl 05:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. And for that to happen, the articles need to be in the state they were before this editing began, namely, without the offending content that  keeps adding back in, wouldn't you agree? MBAguy 05:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advise you to let it go. If you think the material does not belong in the article, your argument would be stronger if you could point to consensus in an RfC. As it stands right now, anyone glancing at the debate just sees two editors revert warring and assumes both are equally at fault. Isopropyl 05:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it SEEMS that way, and that is because / is obviously an intelligent vandal who knows how to game Wikipedia pretty well.  This is why I've asked various admins to read this thread VERY CAREFULLY and see that he is acting in bad faith. I've detailed some issues above, but what I think is perhaps most compelling is that this is a sophisticated Wikipedia user whose handle was created only recently, specifically to promote this concept in all areas. See: . MBAguy 06:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand your grievance, but I think you're missing the point. In this sort of content dispute, where blatant vandalism is not involved, nothing you say is really enforceable. Appealing to admins probably won't help a whole lot either, since they won't want to block unless there's a 3RR violation. You should file an RfC, and if the situation doesn't settle down, continue to arbitration. Isopropyl 06:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Can you tell me where to file the appropriate RfC? MBAguy 06:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: See WP:RFC. Isopropyl 06:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a shame MBAguy has refused from start to finish to discuss, compromise, or consider anything other than his own belligerent opinion. He's disagreed with nearly every wikipedian who has commented in this discussion. His AfD nom was voted down and he's still on the warpath, doesn't want to hear anyone's opinion but his own. AfD's, POV tags, now RfC's, what's next in his campaign? If MBAguy was in the least open to discussion, we could easily settle the "situation" in a few minutes, but he wants to bring in a bureaucracy. GO WHARTON 06:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your changing of section headings again. Please don't change other people's section headings! My comments above on your campaign stand. MBAguy 07:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained above, section titles were changed, for clarity purposes, to match the standard you set in titling your own section. Please don't revert without first reaching consensus. You're still violating wikipedia standards. Again, it's not as though you care about editing standards, civility, or discussion. GO WHARTON 08:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop vandalizing the talk page and section headings! You should not change other people's headings and comments! MBAguy 08:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've made a habit of moving or deleting my comments. Please don't revert without first reaching consensus. You're still violating wikipedia standards. Again, it's not as though you care about editing standards, civil discussion, or consensus. GO WHARTON 08:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: YET AGAIN: please stop vandalizing the talk page and section headings! You should not change other people's headings and comments! MBAguy 08:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MBAguy you're lying again. Please do not revert without first reaching consensus. Thanks. GO WHARTON 08:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: YET AGAIN: PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING THE TALK PAGE AND EDITING OTHER PEOPLE'S HEADINGS AND COMMENTS! MBAguy 08:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Vandalizing talk pages like you're doing is not acceptable. You've been warned repeatedly, please refrain from doing this again. MBAguy 09:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{user|GO WHARTON}} and {{user|MBAguy}}: the recent revert war 

message: ...for violating the three-revert rule, WP:3RR, specifically on Columbia Business School (and, of course, five other articles). 
In order to be as even-handed as possible, I've reverted GO WHARTON's last edits to Harvard Business School, Wharton School, and Yale School of Management, but not to S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management, Tuck School of Business, or Columbia Business School. 
Hopefully, that will please nobody.
This choice was made at random and does not reflect any opinion on my part that... well, I honestly don't even remember who is on which side or which schools are in which state... that some of these schools are any more deserving of being called Ivy League business schools than any other, or, well, whatever.
Please try to consider this as a one-day Wikivacation, and come back with with constructive ideas on how some kind of detente can be reached. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided to sign off Wikipedia because admins refuse to spend enough time to sort out legitimate users (who have contributed in the past) from trolls whose handles were created to perpetuate a single POV. It makes me lose faith entirely in this system. Wikipedia will degenerate into a mass of completely biased, untrustworthy information. MBAguy 17:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GO WHARTON and MBAGuy have been blocked for 24 hours... 

message: How come this table only sorts corectlty on the 'Forbes' column? --Duncan 10:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be sorting as text not as numbers, so "#2" is higher than "#11". Forbes only works coincidentally, because there is no tens-place change among the values. No clue how to fix it well:( DMacks 15:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does taking out the # work? Let me try... --Duncan 14:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That worked. Nice and easy ;-) --Duncan 14:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranking and reputation: table fixed! 

message: I know of Cornell's AEM (Applied Econ and Management) program but as referenced it's offered by the school of agriculture and not by the business school itself. --StevyeG 02:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just restored a mention of the Cornell undergraduate business program and the explanation for it. Even if the Johnson School is not the school offering it, it makes no sense to talk about Brown and Princeton's business-related undergraduate offerings and not talk about Cornell's. YLee (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cornell's BS Program 

message: This isn't a degree, so we should exclude this. The anonymous editor who is introducing it thinks it's unique. And comments that "Duncan:  I added the Certificate in Business Excellence because, at Columbia, completing the program grants you full alumni status.  You receive all of the benefits of an MBA grad, sans the degree.  Since there are no other executive education programs at an Ivy League school that grant alumni status, it will not result in a clutter, or any more entries." In fact there are a number of other non-degree executive programmes that lead to alumni status, including the Tuck Executive Program (having studied at Tuck, I can vouch for this), Wharton Fellows, Harvard's AMP (and several other programs at those schools) -- and at Chicago, MIT, Northwestern, Stanford, Virginia, and other business schools. --Duncan 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Duncan's reasoning and conclusion here. DMacks 00:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbia's certificate. 

message: I translated this article into Chinese. One Chinese IP User told me that ther is one wrong information in this part:
Check in the original article ,THere is Not all of the Billionaires , but only that kind of make they fortunes from finance.and the 90% is part of 50% who have graduate degree.
hope your guys can understand what i want to express and fix this wrong information.XD --奔流沙|(Talk) 09:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Ivy League business schools. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051216052245/http://125th.wharton.upenn.edu/celebrate/leadership.html to http://125th.wharton.upenn.edu/celebrate/leadership.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion