Talk:University of California, Los Angeles/Archive 1

message: Is anybody up to the task of fleshing out the athletics section? For such an athletically successful university, the athletics section is pretty small.
Added the fact that Jackie Robinson is a Hall of Famer (8/20/04)
:Personally it seems to me there should be separate articles about the different athletics programs. I've created a UCLA athletics category and am going about just sticking existing articles about the players and coaches into the subcategories. --Howcheng 17:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Athletics

message: It's interesting to note that Berkeley's entry is longer than UCLA's... I thought Berkeley was always a rival school to LA... --Allyunion 07:05, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berkeley 

message: Congratulations on your ability to fill a page with several paragraphs of pointless intellectual masturbation; if only your contributions to the article were equally compelling. 
Of all the noteworthy achievements that UCLA can claim as its own, like being the birthplace of the Internet or discovering AIDS, you chose to highlight some trivial point concerning the UCLA hotel. Your bullshit Libertarian sci-fi extrapolations from the fact that a publicly funded university runs a hotel are 1. laughable and 2. a surefire sign that someone hasn't been taking advantage of the female (or male?) population in Westwood. 
And is the person who cannot deduce that UCLA College is, in all likelihood, the same thing as The College of Letters and Sciences the kind of student we should be letting in?
NO.
What idiot would think that UCLA abolished its undergraduate program, from Wikipedia of all fucking places? T-H-I-N-K.  
 
U.S. News and World Report collegiate rankings are bullshit; they regularly rank UCLA and Cal behind schools that have never produced a single Nobel Prize winning graduate, including Stanford, Notre Dame and Brown. Steinbeck won for literature, but he dropped out and almost never attended while being a Cardinal.
And learn how to write; your prose is drier than Barbara Bush's crotch.
----
You're a whining little crybaby troll in an adult's body looking for an online pissing contest.  So here goes.
First, Wikipedia is not a blog. See the Wikipedia policies on the community portal.  If you want to cuss till the cows come home and demonstrate that you have the intellectual immaturity of a four year old, get your own goddamn Web server.  Or we can take this to ArbCom and you will probably be banned. Permanently. Like the notorious "Mr. Treason."  
Here's another test. Try talking like that to your professors some time in the middle of class. I look forward to reading in the Daily Bruin of your expulsion.
Second, Wikipedia is not a blog.  Wikipedia style is supposed to be neutral, not loaded, bitchy, or biased.  If that means dry, so be it.  See the Wikipedia policies.  
Third, libertarianism is not b.s.  In fact, it's the dominant political philosophy in the U.S.  The only difference between left and right is how much to outsource, and how much to screw the poor (or not).  Get with the party, fool. Start reading some Rand and Rothbard (as well as some Nozick and a little Rawls and Galbraith for perspective).  What the hell do you believe in?  Communism? Hedonism? I'm a utilitarian, by the way.
Fourth, U.S. News and World Reports rankings are bullshit.  Most intellectuals know that.  But everyone pays attention to them anyway, even universities who say they don't care about rankings.  It's recursive, like race.  It's bullshit that matters because people care about it.  And people care about it because it matters.  Circular, yeah. But if that were the only test of validity, then "race" would have been replaced a long time ago by "ethnic group." But race is in Wikipedia anyway because it still matters.  Same thing with U.S. News and World Reports.  That's why the rankings should be mentioned.
Fifth, Wikipedia is NOT aimed solely towards a UCLA audience.  The people most likely to look up an article on UCLA are probably people not at UCLA, and in fact, are statistically going to be among the vast majority of the human population who are not even qualified to attend here.  You are assuming that the audience has the ability to make that deduction and would not see it as a non sequitur.  I am thinking about the larger Wikipedia audience.  Think about people who have never been to college or whose families may never attended college (like the vast majority of humanity), and may be unfamiliar with the arcane conventions of academe (like the subtle difference in meaning between "college" and "university").  You sound like a spoiled brat who takes college attendance for granted.  
Finally, your disdain for philosophy or any kind of intelligent analysis is a defensive mechanism.  It advertises your pathetic ignorance.  Congratulations, you just revealed your inability to grasp the complexity of human existence.  With a small mind like yours, you'll always be a mere technician, not an intellectual or a professional.  
If you'd paid attention in history class, you would realize that most of the great successes of our time come from people who pay attention to details and think a lot about them and what they mean.  Details matter.  That goes for everything, whether it's business, law, government, science, engineering, whatever. 
Some analysts argued that Carly Fiorina just got fired from HP because she's a great salesperson but doesn't know jack shit about details because she never worked operations.  A lot of dumb managers get fired because they think certain details are "below them" while they're too busy partying (and humping) till 5 in the morning at the hottest nightclubs.  Bill Gates became the wealthiest person on the planet because he's a notorious micromanager and he knows and thinks about everything.  
Anyway, I suspect that's why you're too chicken to create an account, because then your stupidity could be traced back to you someday.  
--Coolcaesar 11:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine.  I disagree with you on this point, but it's a minor one, so I'll concede on it.  --Coolcaesar 17:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defending the inclusion of the information which some anonymous user keeps wanting to edit out 

message: I think that Ralph Bunche, Bunche Hall and the Sculpture garden might get more attention if their annotations survived. This deserves a note in the UCLA article  -- An alumnus and Nobel Laureate, who previously served in Middle East negotiations at the risk of his life, has a campus building named in his honor. Ancheta Wis 13:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ralph Bunche]] 

message: Once the page is unprotected, can someone fix two typos in the third paragraph of the "Campus" section - change "1960's and 1970's" to read "1960s and 1970s".  Thanks. -- John Fader 13:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Typos to fix

message: Can you people sign your names on this page. The guy without an account, get one, ot put someting. I can't follow this interesting, yet vulgar, conversation. Oh and keep political comments about Barbra Bush out of Wikipedia Howabout1 03:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Names

message: Looks like the anonymous coward is back.  Article protection may be needed again soon, if we get into another tug-of-war over article content.
In reviewing my scorching counterattack above, I realized I had missed the most obvious cheap shot: And how would you happen to have carnal knowledge of Barbara Bush anyway?  
--Coolcaesar 13:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  He's back... 

message: While I'm not up to writing it, there is a noticable (that is, total) absence of any mention of UCLA's activist history in this article. While student activism might not be as interesting (to some people) as the UCLA Guest House, the fact that a few Panthers were shot in Campbell Hall as a result of the FBI's Cointelpro program in the 60s might be worthy of some reference. 
http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?ID=27016
--Amerique 09:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Activism

message: I removed a link entitled "Off campus housing" to a private website known as iHomeConnect.  There is an ongoing discussion with the author about this link at User talk:24.24.130.247.  He has been inserting this link into several SoCal college pages.  Please contribute to the discussion.  Thank you. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 

message: any reasonable objections to including a paragraph on ethnic and area studies at ucla? i think a mention is appropriate because the various ethnic studies centers are a direct consequence of campus activism in the 60s and because their configuration into independent research units is something else distinctive about ucla. Research in these areas is at least as as important as research into high technology. 
here is a text i composed:
UCLA hosts four major inter-disiplinary research centers in Ethnic Studies: the American Indian Studies Center Asian American Studies Center, Chicano Studies Research Center, and the Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies, all of which were independently established in response to student demand in 1969. Numerous other Area studies centers such as Latin American Studies, African Studies, and Near Eastern Studies provide students with an international scope in both research and academics.
--Amerique 00:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what's the relationship of these institutions to the Ethnic Studies department at Berkeley?  I'm not sure about this, but I was under the impression that UC Berkeley led the way on this issue, at least in the UC system.  --Coolcaesar 01:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethnic Studies

message: To the author who constructed the UCLA article you wrote, "The University of California, Los Angeles, popularly known as UCLA, is a public, coeducational university located in the residential area of Westwood within the city of Los Angeles. It is the second-oldest campus in the University of California system and the largest university in the state of California."
The latter part of that statement, "...and the largest university in the state of California" is erroneous is you're referring to the physical size of the university.  I'm not sure, but I believe that UCLA, in terms of student populace, has the largest student population of California universities; however, from the way the article is written, I believe you were referring to physical size of the university.  In terms of physical size and area, Stanford University is the largest university in California comprising almost eight times the land area of UCLA.
that's the beauty of wikipedia, you can edit the information yourself!--68.40.13.92 18:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can safely attest, as I work in Westwood, that the UCLA campus is "big" only in the sense of the number of buildings and population density; the physcial size of the campus is small.  I wonder if "largest" should be better defined.  There is a similar and ongoing controversey with the California State University, as CSU Long Beach has the largest student population, San Diego State the largest research budget, external funding, and number of graduate degrees, Cal Poly SLO the largest land area, CSU Fresno the largest athletic budget, etc., and that leads to squabbling amongst the Users as to which campus is "largest."  Perhaps really the problem is the use of the word "largest" without a definition as to population, density, land area, number of buildings, etc.?  Streltzer 18:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why people are tied-up in knots about this.  Obviously, even thought its wrong, the "largest" refers to the number of students.  Maybe just use "largest number of students".  --Infernalfox 08:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest University in California Error 

message: User Bevo made this edit  on January 11 which was actually incorrect. According to the Manual of Style, proper nouns are capitalized in Wikipedia article titles and heading titles.  
In this case, all three names given are proper nouns in their entirety because they are the official names and trademarks of the units described.  See the following Web pages:  UCLA Healthcare , UCLA Trademarks and Licensing , and UCLA Housing and Hospitality Services .  --Coolcaesar 04:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation.  It seems clear now that they should have been left in caps. - Bevo 04:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bevo's edits on January 11 

message: I don't see any evidence that this page is being vandalized at nearly a high enough rate for the use of Wikipedia:Semi-protection to be appropriate.  Can you clarify the situation please? -- SCZenz 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to give a hand with the reverting than I don't mind removing the protection. -Will Beback 00:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, it's on my watchlist now, and I'm happy to help.  In general, I'd note this is a wiki, and it should be editable—so in the future I'd recommend looking for more hands to help revert before resorting to protection, unless the situation is very dire. -- SCZenz 01:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the help will be appreciated. -Will Beback 01:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-instated the protection. I hope the editor who is deleting the images will discuss the changes. -Will Beback 08:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Beback:The "vandalism" you continue to revert and protect against appears (at least superficially) to be constructive editing. The most recent modifications are not image deletions. Would you please clarify here your stand on the issue?To the anon editor(s) most recently from 69.226.188.47 and 69.226.188.227:Please also discuss your changes here, so that we can avoid edit wars.Thanks, 68.183.117.25 16:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this the user who has been deleting the images? If so, please give your reasons for the deletions. It would help if you would get a username too. I'd be happy to expain my edits, but I'd like to know who I'm talking too. Thanks, -Will Beback 01:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I have not deleted anything. Please discuss your edits, and, if necessary, address the discussion to the community at large (I've forgotten my password). Thanks, 68.183.117.25 04:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: It is my opinion that the editor who went through and removed images, deleted a paragraph on parking, and fixed grammar mistakes was trying to improve the article.  I restored the UCLA logo, but when I looked at restoring the other two images, my impression was that they cluttered the article too much (we don't need all that many pictures).  All that being said, it is generally polite to discuss deletion of material from articles.
:I personally am fine with the images, and with the paragraph on parking, as it is a common concern at ucla. However, the paragraph could have been written more interestingly, like about how despite the huge parking structures there are still not enough spaces for the whole student/faculty/staff population, but this would have to be researched.
:Ideally, I think the whole campus section should be rewritten from an architectural point of view, with appropriate images, as is Cal's, but I am not an architect nor do I have time to research this.--Amerique 16:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the competitive nature of schools, and the fact that the UCLA athletic logo is among those being deleted, I am not sure that the edits are being made in good faith. Since the editor refuses to discuss them, that makes the assumption of good faith even more difficult. -Will Beback 02:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Will's position that the anonymous editor is probably acting in bad faith.  Whomever that clown is, he or she needs to be blocked.  --Coolcaesar 06:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image deletions 

message: We have some images in the article that need to be removed.  Pkeilty claims on the image page that the UCLA School of Law image is public domain, but it is clearly not.  DanielNuyu's claim of fair use for the sculpture garden is weak.  Although it is almost certainly fair use to show images of the sculptures themselves on Wikipedia, the use of the photographs of the sculptures must also be fair use.  The photographer of that image has a good faith claim that Daniel has appropriated his creative work (the selection of the angle and lighting for that particular photograph).  And unlike cases where there was no other way to get access to that particular subject, anyone can go into the garden and photograph those sculptures for themselves.  --Coolcaesar 22:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We really have no little excuse for using "fair use" images for pictures of the modern campus. If we need or want to illustrate these items, let's go and take some pictures we can contribute under the GFDL. -Will Beback 22:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I was acting mainly to alleviate the previous problem of an image placed that had no description whatsoever (not to mention the fact that I thought it was intentionally childish). If you don't think the current image should be there either, by all means take the action you see fit. --DanielNuyu 06:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image provenance issues

message: What particular shade is "true blue"? Is it a more rugged-sounding name for "powder blue"? -Will Beback 23:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue 

message: Folks, I have attempted to add the 10 Nobel laureates with UCLA affiliations into the Nobel Prize laureates by university affiliation. Please correct the entries if they are not in the correct column. --Ancheta Wis 02:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nobel Prize laureates by university affiliation]]

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed
:(History section ends in the 1930s though it does mention other history in the activisim section and the campus section and probably others as well. I think that much of the information of when this building or that building was added should be included in the History section and the campus section should be divided into it's major parts (probably into the parts located at the  "western part of Los Angeles, north of the Westwood shopping district and just south of Sunset Boulevard," a structure that would allow more orderly detail on buildings and such. I have similar feelings for the activisim section as well. Surely the "Dirty Thirty" or something concerning them should be listed in the history section. The Article just doesn't flow well as it is and that should be addressed. 
:Also largely absent are criticisms of university policy or controverseys, which to me indicates bias in favor of the University.
"So basically, a controversey section (activisim doesn't really cover it) and thorough and ordered history and campus section (and a restructuring of the article in general to make it flow better are needed). )
 TonyJoe 06:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, who nominated the UCLA article for a review? I did some of the early editing on the activism section and would be interested in helping to get the entire article up to speed. I stopped editing here because it seemed there were too many nameless editors who developed propiatary affections for their awful prose, especially in the Athletics section, and because an adequate UCLA article would be a huge undertaking. But anyway, I've picked up some information on Chuck Young while editing the UCR article, and can try integrating that and the Activism section with History this weekend if no one objects to my doing this.--Amerique 21:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed

message: I'm posting this survey request Talk:University of California, Riverside#UCR Survey on all the UC talk pages in order to gather outside opinion on ongoing issues concerning the POV of this article. Please read the article and add your insights to the survey to help us identify any points of consensus in the UCR article. Thanks--Amerique 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Survey closed, thanks--Amerique 19:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[University of California, Riverside]] Survey

message: Sounds racially biased. Please check and discuss. Thanks.
Fiaworldrally 07:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the university admissions process is or was, will be, or still is racially biased. What's your concern? Thanks,--Amerique 10:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, my friends. I can't agree that this section has a strong Point of View one way or the other. It is merely reporting the facts, and the sources are cited. I propose removing the POV tag as soon as possible, unless some arguments in favor of keeping it can be shown. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 13:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello George. Let's leave it up for week to see if any counterarguments can be made.--Amerique 03:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Admissions" section NPOV check