Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 10

message: This is addressed to UCRGrad, but may also apply to Insert-Belltower. It's clear to everyone that both of us are acting unciviliy, though admittedly probably me more than you as of late. I'm not expecting one in return, but I'm offering you my apologies for my actions. Still, despite my apology, it's more than apparent that neither of us agree with each other, and heated debates are likely to occur again. 
:Come to think of it, of the people on your side, only your responses have struck me as "uncivil."  For instance, szyslck (sp?) read arguments from myself and I-B, and proposed a change that satisfied both of our requirements.  It took him 5 minutes and less than a paragraph because he/she was not argumentative and provided a reasonable solution that neither I-B or I could argue against.  Rather than apologize, it would be helpful if you took the time to a) acknowledge when you are wrong (when you are), b) avoid being argumentative (i.e. disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing), and c) really addressing the countearguments of others (including avoidance of personal attacks).  It's not of I-B and I "choosing" to agree with you or not.  If you truly have good reasoning and arguments, we have no choice but to agree. UCRGrad
::Since you think that Szyslak's edit was so easy to come to (And I appreciate Syzslak for his contribution), why didn't you just do it yourself instead of engaging in edit warring with me? Mind you, I revised my version to try to reach a compromise, you steadfastly stuck to yours. Also, you've accused multiple people of being uncivil, not just me. I'm not disagreeing that I have been uncivil, I have. I'm just saying that you have as well. As for the apology, I did it at your request. --WHS 13:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Therefore, I'm suggesting informal mediation again, as others have before me. The prior steps in dispute resolution (Avoidance, Talking, etc.) have been tried and it's obvious they're not working. I realize that you'll just say that you (and I-B) have clearly refuted my arguments, blah blah blah, but I could say the same in response. Mediation is one of the few dispute resolution procedures that we haven't yet tried, so what do you say? --WHS 05:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already stated a multitude of reasons why mediation would not be helpful or beneficial to my side.  If you disagree or wish to convince me otherwise, I encourage you to dig through the archives and address the points I have made previously.  In fact, if there is any 3rd-party intervention required here, it should be sanctions against your personal attacks and your over plagiarism (see above).  That's my standpoint.  I'll see what I-B thinks. UCRGrad 13:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the third party sanctions will take care of my personal attacks and supposed plagiarism, then why not do it? Can't say I didn't try.--WHS 13:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, WHS has hereby admitted that he engages in "personal attacks," and shows no intention of stopping. UCRGrad 23:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I show no intention of stopping? I apologized for my personal attacks, something that you would be well suited to do, not that I'm exepcting you to however. --WHS 00:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Where did I threaten a personal attack? *rolls eyes*--WHS 14:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There was no plagiarism, but I can understand if I came off harshly due to my previous uncivil remarks which I've already apologized for (something others ::ahem:: haven't done). But as far as Myrtle Beach goes, let me direct you to this Wikipedia article that is well written, informative, and most importantly, unbiased. --WHS 00:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you say there was "no plagiarism" when there is INDISPUTABLE evidence written above? UCRGrad 00:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your evidence is only indisputable to someone who doesn't understand the concept of plagiarism, as already explained above. Also, there is no need to capitalize entire words without reason. I'm not sure if you're aware, but in the online world it's all caps are considered yelling which is bad etiquitte. Refrain from doing this in the future if you would like me to reply to your comments. The same applies for bold formatting. --WHS 00:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what's considered bad etiquette? Plagiarism. UCRGrad 02:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's a good thing that no one has done it. And incidentally, I already apologized for parodying your work, so it would do us all good for you to drop the matter and focus on the aspects of the article itself.--WHS 02:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to apologize for "parodying my work."  Parody is perfectly acceptable, as long as it does not violate any other rules (i.e. civility), or in this case, that of plagiarism.  Now even in the face of overwhelming evidence here (i.e. several of your plagiarized statements juxtaposed with mine), you STILL refuse to back down and concede the point.  This has been the case since you began editing again, and it is clear that even in the face of irrefutable evidence, you are unwilling to be reasonable.  Clearly, if any neutral third-party were to evaluate this discussion, it would not be looked upon favorably for your camp. UCRGrad 02:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you insist. --WHS 02:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation? 

message: "It has been suggested that UC Riverside College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences be merged into this article or section," per the tag that was placed here.  No compelling reason or explanation has been offered for why this should be done.  I definitely think it is important to mention that UCR has a CHASS department.  It might also be pertinent to mention that it is the largest college of the university.  However, to list all of its sub-departments would be useless, because it out of consistency, we sould have to list all the sub-departments of all the other colleges.  That would be cumbersome, a waste of space, and not provide any information that wasn't easily obtainable from the UCR website.  UCRGrad 14:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging list of CHASS departments 

message: I was in Riverside on business yesterday.  Out of curiosity (provoked by my reading of the discussions on this talk page), I drove through the campus.  UCR is the ugliest university I have ever seen.  Putting a college campus in the middle of a hot, barren desert (surrounded by mostly rocks and occasional brush) was an incredibly unwise move on the part of the UC Regents. Now I totally understand UCRGrad's position, though I still disagree with some of the things he/she has done with the article.  --Coolcaesar 20:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coolcaesar, thanks for providing an update on your position.  If you recall, three months ago on 04:11 6 April 2006, as part of arguments that the article violated NPOV standards, you wrote "I'll concede that my own bias may have something to do with the fact that I have never visited the Riverside, Merced, or San Francisco campuses."  Today, you follow up with "Now I understand UCRGrad's position...UCR is the ugliest university I have ever seen...etc."  I think it's important to note that 3 months ago, Coolcaesar, an otherwise neutral 3rd party with no affiliation or experience with UC Riverside, came across this article and his "gut impression" was that there was bias or an unfair characterization of the school.  Now that this individual has actually SEEN the campus, he realizes that some of the relevant sections were actually fair and accurate!!!  This just reinforces the argument I made previously, that in order to confidently conclude that this article is biased or unfairly weighted, one must first have sufficient familiarity with the university to begin with!  Thus, many of the dissenting editors here, especially Amerique, who have ZERO affiliation or fundamental knowledge about UC Riverside, are likely to share the same initial opinions that Coolcaesar did.  I am confident that if Coolcaesar spent more time at the school, evaluating the other relevant aspects mentioned in the article, he would surely agree that the other portions of the text are fair and accurate as well.  Thanks. UCRGrad 03:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the input Coolcaesar, would you mind filling out the UCR survey I developed? I'm trying to get multiple viewpoints registered on the article and would appreciate your insights.--Amerique 22:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I've lived in Moreno Valley for over ten years.  MV is RIGHT NEXT to Riverside, and people who live in MV tend to go to Riverside all the time for various things.  My mother went to UCR.  It's in a desert - the Inland Empire.  It's got the weather of a desert, dry and hot.  It has the landscape of a desert.  I'm not sure how this in debate. Danny Lilithborne 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify my position:  I still feel the article is biased and negative in a number of ways that are against Wikipedia policy, as I have expressed above.  But I would have no problem with any edits that indicate that UCR sits in a hot, bleak desert surrounded by ugly mountains that are nothing more than rock, dirt, and the occasional tumbleweed.  The smog makes the scene only more unpleasant, of course.  Even Irvine and Merced have gently rolling hills covered with grass.  --Coolcaesar 19:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now I understand UCRGrad's position 

message: I feel the quotation is a representative, concise and pity statement and is in context with the statistic that says ~50% students would not return to UCR if given choice. It would be less appropriate to put an extended quote because of the nature of this article. The statement serves to give the reader an insight that is beyond the simply raw numbers and statistics. In a sense, it brightens the article with life; a hint at the student perspective.
Insert-Belltower 01:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks IB, for your coherent summary. I will get back to your comments here later.--Amerique 20:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, I understand that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article. But you would think, from the above remarks by UCRGrad, that only UCRGrad can write and edit the article, and anything anyone else does is vandalism. As a matter of fact, I did edit this article the first time I saw it, two or three days ago, and it was quickly reverted back to the old version. I could, of course, revert back to my version. In fact, I understand that I am allowed to do this three times a day, 365 days a year. So far, I have decided not to take this approach, but there is no guarantee that I won't take it in the future. starkt 10:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, so you were user 66.214.118.69 and "Starkt" is your login name? Thanks. UCRGrad 14:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pretty new to wikipedia and sometimes forget to login. However, I am not, and I have never been, user 66.214.118.69. Oh, and I'm still eager to find out what a "sockpuppet" is. starkt 08:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that he or she is threatening to "break" the 3RR.  I do agree that it's perhaps not the best way to build collaboration but let's assume good faith in our newcomer.  --ElKevbo 16:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ElKevbo, Starkt did write: "In fact, I understand that I am allowed to [revert] three times a day, 365 days a year. So far, I have decided not to take this approach, but there is no guarantee that I won't take it in the future."  That sounds like a threat to me.  Starkt, if you were threatening to break the 3RR, can you clarify what you meant by this statement? Thanks. UCRGrad 16:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the 3 revert rule that you can revert 3 times in a 24 hour period, but no more? If so, then I don't see how my entertaining the idea of reverting (not yet threatening to revert) three times a day, 365 days a year, would be breaking the 3 revert rule. I don't even see how actually reverting three times a day, 365 days a year, would be breaking that rule. And I would add that others here can do the same. For example, if 6 editors each chose to revert 3 times a day, that would be 18 reverts a day without any rules being broken. starkt 08:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Starkt, like you, many of us have problems with the edits and policy violations that both UCRGrad and I-B have committed. However, even entertaining the thought of possibly reverting three times a day for every day in a given year is frowned upon and can be thought of as wikilawyering, as the spirit of the WP:3RR rule would obviously be broken. Also, since you asked, a WP:SOCK violation occurs when a single user has multiple accounts that are used to "create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block. ". --WHS 09:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. It is probably long past time to stop discussing and start reverting. starkt 08:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IB's Justification for the Abomination Quote 

message: Alright, change #1 is going to be on the admissions information. When you look at the page, you will see that there are new requirements for all uc schools for the fall of 2007. This is from the uc website, itself and I think we can all agree it is more accurate. 66.214.118.69 22:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guy, I don't mean to offend you, but though I am in disagreement with UCRG/IB on this and on many other issues regarding the phrasing of such information, I can't agree with your argument here that we shouldn't include information from sources other than UC websites. The PR "data" should be taken for what it is, but that does not mean it should not be included along with information from other diverse sources.--Amerique 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change 1

message: Change #2 made in the recruitment and alumni section for several logical reasons.
1)The alumni donation site reference talks about UCI and not UCR. Therefore, that whole statement is incorrect.
:The reference for alumni donation rates at UCR is US News and World Report.  It clearly supports the facts in the article. UCRGrad 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. It's in the article used as a reference, that recruitment of home-schooled students was designed to attract qualified applicants. Please read it. UCRGrad 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The article does not state that "alumni are unhappy."  Furthermore, the quote from the anonymous survey respondant has already been discussed thoroughly.  Your one-line argument somehow doesn't supercede the recent discussion that spanned several pages. UCRGrad 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the quote has been discussed thoroughly.  And it's pretty clear to me that the consensus is that it should be removed.  --ElKevbo 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the consensus is that it be removed. starkt 09:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I gotta agree - you're gonna have to be a bit more specific in this assertion.  I'm not sure it really matters anyway as "[WP:V|The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth]]."  --ElKevbo 23:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the university's own statistics and information are the most reliable and verifiable. I have never known UC to lie about such things. starkt 09:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change 2

message: Change #3 is made in the biomed program section. The sentence about the possible success/failure of biomed students is purely unbacked opinion, with no references in any way that actually discuss how these graduates are doing. This was put in solely to make ucr look bad for no justifiable reason. 
I also removed the statement about the trailers and "basement" of the stats building. The underground floor of the stats building is clearly not a basement, but just another floor of the building. It is completely identical to all other floors, complete with an elevator and several nice little lecture halls. I took several biomed courses and the ONE course that was in the portable building is simply because new buildings are still under construction. Is that really a negative? No. It's only until the rest is built and it's only been for a few months. 
:Note: the underground floor of a building is commonly referred to as a "basement."  The original statement in the article is a true statement, irrespective of your miscellaneous arguments here. UCRGrad 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure that there is not another floor beneath that floor? And if so, how do you know? Have you seen the architectural drawings? starkt 09:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, the UC site is reliable. starkt 09:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change 3

message: Change #5. This was the removal of the 909 stigma. The sources included opinions from an author of the oc weekly and urbandictionary.com. Not only are these sites purely based on the opinions of the writer, with no numbers to validate them... but EVEN if they do have any sort of accuracy (which has not been proven with any kind of valid statistics), it does not reflect properly on the student body and faculty of UCR. Not everyone who has anything to do with the school is from that area. Nor is there any proof that the people of UCR act like said stereotype. As you can see, it is inappropriate for several reasons. And no one said you have to talk to me if you don't want to. I, however, have been much more civil about this process. 66.214.118.69 23:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Danny Lilithborne. starkt 09:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change 5

message: After reading the debate from all the sides, I propose that we remove the "UCR is an abomination to higher education" quote.  I think it's VERY clear that everybody (with the exception of UCRGrad and IB) agrees that the quote is blatantly biased and is used as a swipe against UC Riverside.  It's a patently offensive quote that is a blatant violation of the NPOV policy.  Sorry UCRGrad and IB, majority rules!  Teknosoul02 00:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you believe that the "majority rules" on this issue?  How were you able to determine that the majority agrees with you, and for the correct reasons? UCRGrad 02:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you believe that majority rules?  Why do you believe your reasons are correct on this issue? Danny Lilithborne 03:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Go for it!  --ElKevbo 02:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Out it goes. starkt 09:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change 6