User talk:Mholland

Welcome to my talk page Please add new comments at the bottom of the page, with an appropriate and/or witty header. If you leave me a message here, I will reply here. If I left you a message on your talk page, I will look for changes there, but you are welcome to reply here if you wish. Thank you

please do not swap between name and native name

hello. i appreciate all your hard formatting, wikifying and categorising work, but please do not swap between the name and native name in the infobox of the "universiti teknologi petronas" a.k.a. "petronas university of technology" page.

please let me explain.

i do realise that this is an english language wikipedia. however, if you visit the university's offical english language website at http://www.utp.edu.my/ you will notice that "universiti teknologi petronas" is used on every page. this is because "universiti teknologi petronas" is the university's official name, used even in the english media such as official english documents (admission letters, approval letters, results slips, exam slips, certificates, etc.), english printed materials (monthlies, guidebooks, brochures, etc.) and english newspapers. "petronas university of technology" is more of a nickname, a name only commonly-used by english-speaking students. however, it has not been or is not commonly used in the english media.

however, regarding your statement that this is an english language wikipedia, why is it that sports clubs such as Sporting Clube de Portugal, Club Atlético River Plate, and A.C. Milan are left to their traditional native spellings rather than being translated from portugese, spanish and italian to english? anyway, i do not wish to argue over this matter. i do hope that you understand the reason "universiti teknologi petronas" comes first before "petronas university of technology".

having explained all that, is there any way you can change the article title to "universiti teknologi petronas"? if you can, please do so.

thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.49.127.72 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC).

Neither term is especially common in English - I have never encountered the institution outside of Wikipedia. One is just a straight translation of the other. However, on the basis that there appear to be more English-language Google hits for the Malay, I have moved the page to Universiti Teknologi Petronas. If you would like to register an account, you can move pages like this yourself in future.

The infobox, however, I have left as is: the name in the name field should always be an English-language translation, except where the foreign-language version is universally used untranslated by English speakers. — mholland (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template deletion

Hi there, CattleGirl. A couple of these deleted navboxes are still being called by a few articles ([1] [2]). I've just tidied up residual transclusions of the related A38-settlement navboxes: do you know if there is a deletion review forthcoming here or can I go ahead and tidy up after these deletions? — mholland (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Mholland,

Sorry, I didn't realise. I'm not sure about deletion review just yet, I'll have to wait for a reply from Excellentone. Cheers- CattleGirl ^talk 09:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

University of York

Hia, I noticed that you removed a number of links to entities associated with the University of York. I see your point re "linkfarm" - but there is no link to them on the main York site, and they are very well known campus institutions (I attended from 1998 to 2001). I have therefore taken the decision to restore the links. Parmesan 12:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being in touch. Perhaps I was hasty in removing them. I'll not remove them a second time, but I do question the value of the links to the TV and radio stations - the target sites contain very little material relevant to the University itself, and don't add any encyclopedic value. — mholland (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

stop vandalizing the wittenberg university page

please stop vandalizing the wittenberg university page. Please refer to the discussion page for any questions you may have about secret societies at the school before removing the information about them or you will be reported for vandalism.

Hi there. Please be assured that I mean no harm to the article Wittenberg University. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot accept material that is unreferenced: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (per WP:V). I have left a message on the article's talk page. — mholland (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the point of the secret societies at Witt is that no one knows much about them. I'll look for archives in the school paper, but here are a couple sources about the shifters [3] (that mentions an alumni who was a shifter) [4], ( http://www6.wittenberg.edu/lib/witt_pubs/torch/search.php?database=torch&fields[]=subject&terms=Shifters ) it won't let me do a proper link, but that is an index of the shifters in the school paper. I'll see if I can find better sources for the other ones in the paper. Morhange 13:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you want us to write a freaking pamphlet?!? I'm a student here, secret societies do exsist and all the societies on this page are present and known by the students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.209.225 (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As a member of a secret society at Wittenberg I am privy to insider information about some of these groups. I can verify to the best of my knowledge on the behalf of my society, that the information currently on the website is correct. Please stop interfering in a matter of which you can have no real knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witttruth (talk • contribs) 03:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wittenberg University section on secret societies really frustrates me. I was not a member of any secret society but referring to societies other than the Shifters and the Wizards is obsurd. From my friends and my point of view, the Shifters are something everyone is curious about and the Wizards are a group that everyone wants to party with. I'm impressed the gnomes have stayed around this with no basis behind their existence and as for the others, what a crock!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.177.225.105 (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You sound like an idiot, and you're obviously not very observant. There are many many societies here on campus, you're just too busy hero worshipping the wizards to see it!!! Have fun partying with them, hope you don't end up... you know.

you obviously haven't been on campus for a while, as the shifters are still around, the wizards are in hiding following an incident last year. the gnomes are still around, and the knights were around 2 years ago but just recently made a reappearance. as for the other ones that keep getting added they are completely false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.214.182 (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of the term troll (in internet lingo)? At first I thought you were someone bitter over not getting tapped into one of the witt society's, whether it was the shifters, wizards, bolts, gnomes, village, Knights, or alchemists, all of whom exist. I can't count the number of times I see a paper clip, rainbow, duct tape patch, zodiac symbol, washer, plastic sword or roach clip on a fellow student. Then I see you've never been a student or alumni. I doubt you've ever even been here since I see you were trolling on other pages besides Wittenberg. You clearly know nothing about secret societys, judging by the comments you made about your changes. Good Lord, you're annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wittykittykat (talk • contribs) 16:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Kitty kat hit it right on! GET A LIFE MHOLLAND AND GET OVER THE FACT THAT WE ARE RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THIS COLLEGE YOU HAVE NEVER STEEPED FOOT ON! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morhange v2 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

mholland...you're an ass fuck off and die! this has noting to do with you and you are missrepresneting this campus...people like you are the reason wikipedia cannot be cited as a good source...cuntface —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therealbessy (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglia Ruskin University

Please would you post any comments that you have on the editing of Anglia Ruskin University's wiki to the discussion page of the article itself. Many thanks.Mrsradcliffe23 13:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. — mholland (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

ARU

Thank you for your contribution to ARU's talk page and your reinstatement of the glasgow bomber link. It is outrageous that it was removed after the fact was so widely disemminated in the press, eg the guardian! Thanks again for helping to make wikipedia a source of neutral fact and to stop the supression of information. Thank youMrsradcliffe23 15:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful. — mholland (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox University transclusions reply

I agree, it probably would be easier, more elegant and above all quicker to edit the template, however I am not experienced enough to edit something that technical. If you know how to edit it then by all means revert mine, I just did it because I think this is a better layout. Algebra man 14:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cranfield

Excellent improvement.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cj1340 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

I'm grateful. — mholland (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandstone Unviersities

I don't understand why the table was deleted. why?Sandstoner 10:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. When I removed the table, I gave the edit summary "no added value". What I meant was that the table didn't really add anything to the article, beyond being a repeat of the list of members. External links in the main body of an article aren't encouraged (per the Manual of Style). Because the group is only informal, I didn't think that a table of comparable statistics (like the one at, e.g., Ivy League) is necessary or suitable. — mholland (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

University of Reading

(From User talk:Sol89)

Appologies, I was just trying to update the entry with the new logo as the one that was there was the old one. I'll make a note of it, thanks!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sol89 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

No problem. Happy editing! — mholland (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

SUNY New Paltz

Thanks for the advice on the COIN page re this matter. I added that to the discussion. Bearian 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful. — mholland (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Red brick and Reading

Hi.

Along with another set of changes I agree with, you reverted my removal of the fact tag on the assertion that Reading is a 'red brick' university. I had removed this with the comment:

(removed fact tag from 'red brick' claim; whether Reading is or is not a red brick university is extensively discussed on the linked page.)

Your reversion carried the comment:

(Rem. "red-brick" claim from intro - Wikipedia is not a reliable source; ...)

I think you misunderstood my removal. I wasn't citing the Red brick universities page as a source (indeed by definition WP cannot be a source for itself); I was suggesting that as the bulk of the text on whether Reading was or was not a red brick was at that page, the correct place for WP to cite its sources for that claim would be there. Otherwise there is a danger of contadictory definitions and cites in the two articles.

By adding your own link to red brick and associating it with Whiteknights Park, you have (I'm afraid) fallen exactly into that trap. The gist of the definition of red brick in Red brick universities is such that it would not apply to Whiteknights, but would plausably apply to London Road, which was the only University of Reading site during the period in which the article alleges 'red brick status' was acquired. And the cite you have attached uses 'red brick' in a completely different and very much more literal sense.

The result is that we now two linked articles with conflicting definitions of red brick. How do you suggest we sort this out without getting into a revert war. -- Chris j wood 16:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think linking the phrase "Reading is a red-brick university" to a page which discusses whether it is or isn't is a non-starter. I googled for sources and found this page which asserts that Foxhall House, on Whiteknights Park, is made of red bricks (and more relevantly, was designed by the red brick architect Alfred Waterhouse). If Whiteknights definitely isn't red brick, but London Road might be, we need a better source.

The root of the problem is that Red Brick universities is wholly unsourced, and possibly OR. I would suggest that a start would be to get the Red Brick article sourced and then refine the claim on the Reading page to match. I'll see if I can find some sources for the Red Brick article. You are welcome to remove the bit I added to University of Reading. — mholland (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Red Brick universities does need more references. Actually it did have a couple of informal source statements in the text, and I've converted these into formal book cites using the WP ref construct. I've therefore replaced your unreferenced tag with the refimprove tag. But I havn't (yet) located either of the books, so I'm not sure how much use they are in citing more than just what one guy thought. -- Chris j wood 14:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I created Edgar Allison Peers last night, which may worth reading. He did coin the term. Unfortunately, we won't find a magic list in his book, nor a set of criteria. At the time of writing it, the only Universities in Britain were the Ancient universities and the modern universities, mostly Victorian and mostly brick, as opposed to the stone of the Ancients.

Peers used the term to denigrate the modern institutions, arguing that the Ancients were in the business of extending knowledge by research, but the red-bricks were just distributing knowledge to lots more people. I can't tell you why he thought this, because I haven't read the book, and it's not possible to draw up a list of red-bricks based on Peers's criterion, because most Victorian universities now consider themselves research institutions anyway.

A lot of the present article still reads like nonsense to me. E.g. "The smallest and latest university to achieve "Red Brick" status is the University of Leicester". As if red-brickness is a quality that can be acquired in any objective sense. — mholland (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On July 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edgar Allison Peers, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done, after all the discussion above, you have a moment in the sun. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — mholland (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

School of Oriental and African Studies

how is soas being a leading university an unverifiable claim just how do u claim to verify details??? how can u claim imperial is better than the LSE itself and say its in the top 3 in the country.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.99.176.127 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC).

Hi there. Please be assured that I mean no disservice to SOAS, which is an excellent institution, like many other UK universities. In general, I would say that being a "leading university" is a vague and biased claim which no Wikipedia article on any university should contain. It is official policy that articles should contain only neutrally-presented information that's attributed to verifiable, third-party sources. In this case, it means that quoting a specific ranking is okay, but calling SOAS or LSE "prestigious", "leading" or "highly-ranked" in general is not okay. If you find any other articles which make unsourced claims like those, you should remove them, or leave a note on the article's talk page – that way, all of our content is neutral and free from academic boosterism. — mholland (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Editorial of the University of Canberra

Editorial on the Wikipedia page of the University of CAnberra is restricted to: UC Marketing Communications, specifically, Director of Marketing (Meredith Jackson), Brand Manager (Tiffany King) and Media Manager (Ed O'Daly). All other changes require approval from the University.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tiffking2615 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

Hi there. I notice that another editor has already referred you to WP:OWN and our policy concerning conflicts of interest. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It's one of our core principles that anybody can edit any article. Please be advised that while other editors should treat you and your contributions with respect, it is frowned upon for editors to contribute exclusively to articles on organisations they represent.

You may find that your edits are scrutinised especially heavily by other editors. Note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with strict content guidelines, and not a neat marketing channel. Thank you. — mholland (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

'University' of Bedfordshire

Thanks for improving that page. I wonder, however, if you missed 'a small number' in the 'reputation' section. No problem if you left it there deliberately:)

thanks

Alfred Vella 13:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rudder Statue.JPG

Hi, I read your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Texas A&M University. Thanks for the support for the FA! Regarding the picture, I'm the uploader/photographer of it. To what size should I resize it to so that it meets the WP:NFCC? (What would be considered "low resolution"?) BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure. That's why I tagged it for {{fairusereview}}. It's a derivative of a copyrighted 3D-work, so policy says it should be shrunk to the minimum size necessary. Since the recent fair-use crackdown, it has been suggested that 300 pixels on the longest side usually strikes the right balance (such an image is always less than 0.1 megapixel), but fair use content can be larger, so long as it's justified in the rationale. In the case of the statue, I'd say fair use would extend to the minimum size it would have to be for you to recognise the subject clearly, or just large enough to make out the text on the plinth.

If nobody at Fair Use Review has a better idea, I'd say that the image should be reuploaded under the same filename at about 400-500px tall and then tagged with {{Non-free reduced}}. It's a shame, because in the UK, for example, freedom of panorama covers photographs of statues displayed in public (like this one) and there's no need to go hobbling otherwise perfectly good images. — mholland (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and reduced the size to where the text on the plinth is legible, as you suggested. The review didn't show up on the fair use review page, so I removed that template and went ahead and tagged it with the non-free reduced template. Looks like whoever is in charge of that is taking care of it. I also asked the help desk about the image, and got this response. I agree though, it is definitely a shame that freedom of panorama doesn't cover public statues. Anyhow, thanks for the advice!! BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

All seems good. Thanks for taking the time to adjust that. Happy editing! — mholland (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Anne Tismer image

Hi, and thanks for your message. You say you have "tagged Image:Anne Tismer is Nora.JPG (currently used at A Doll's House) as being in need of a fair use rationale. I'm not certain that a valid rationale can be drafted in this image's case: as a photograph of the actress it would be considered replaceable, and it is not readily identifiable as a photograph of the character, Nora. It could equally be Hadda Gabler or Ophelia. Additionally, the image lacks a source identifying the copyright holder, and it is quite large, likely failing the third non-free content criterion."

I'd appreciate it if you could reread what you have written and then tell me what you want me to do now (except give up all hope). Best wishes, <KF> 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure the image is worth including at all (and the missing-rationale tag is a deletion tag, if no rationale is supplied). If you're of the opinion that the image depicts a notable or well-known rendition of the play (it's possible: I understand that Anne Tismer is a well-known German actress, but I've no particular expertise in this sort of area), then add a rationale explaining the iconic nature of the image and how it meets all of the relevant criteria ({{Non-free use rationale}} is useful for that). It would also be appropriate to re-upload the image at a lower resolution (300px on the longest side is a suggestion) and then delete the old revision. Alternatively, you are at liberty to do nothing, and an admin that enjoys/participates in deleting unlicensed images that don't meet the non-free content policy will delete it in a few days.

I visited and nominated the image because an anon removed it from A Doll's House in good faith. — mholland (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I guess I'll do nothing: At the time I uploaded the image I thought it illustrated the article, but I can see now that there are too many problems connected with it. All the best, <KF> 20:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful. — mholland (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RAE

Thanks for clearing that up :). Jpowell 22:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers. — mholland (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Moving articles via cut and paste

Hello, I actually didn't do any cut-past stuff rather I tried to restore the original article. American International University - Bangladesh is the original name of this university and AIUB is its abbreviation. We are trying to improve its quality from WikiProject_Bangladeshi_Universities. At Wikipedia, American International University - Bangladesh - this link holds original article and AIUB holds a redirect. Day before yesterday, one of our newly registered (compare to others) members copied whole text to AIUB and left a redirect in American International University - Bangladesh. I just changed his edits and made it as it was previously. Thanks for your concern in Bangladeshi university articles. Niaz bd 00:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you acted in good faith. Putting the article back at American International University - Bangladesh was the right thing to do. But you did perform a cut and paste. User:Munimbuet used the move tab to transfer the article and its history from one title to another. Instead of using the same tab to move the article back, you copied the text from the latest revision of the article and pasted it over the redirect at the old title. This is harmful to Wikipedia, because it is a condition of Wikipedia's license that the page history must be properly maintained. See WP:MOVE for instructions on the correct procedure for moving a page, and WP:SPLICE for help when you are unable to perform a move yourself. The article now appears 'fixed', because User:Maxim has performed a history merge.

Please read that carefully: the correction you made to American International University - Bangladesh was improperly carried out, and you should not do the same again. It's not a very big deal, but it does sometimes require admin intervention to fix. — mholland (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry for what I did. I forgot to use the move option. I promise you, in future this mistake will not be repeated. And thanks again for warning me and keeping me on the track. Niaz bd 07:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome; it's nothing to be sorry about. Thank you for your continuing good work. — mholland (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks

Thanks for the NOTE, actually I am new here, and I want to learn. I will follow your suggestion next time. It is ok for any member here to revise my edits since this will improve wikipedia articles, by TIME I will learn more.

Regards.

--Florentino floro 12:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — mholland (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:UofT Heraldic Arms.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:UofT Heraldic Arms.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot, we meet at last! Not my image, has been replaced with a better image, Image:Uoft crest.png. Admins should feel free to delete it. — mholland (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your argument

Thanks for your argument at World Universities Debating Ranking. Actually this is the only ranking followed by the debating arena. As debating federations are not well organized they usually do not maintain any official registered site but they maintain web-blogs. Can we consider those blogs as third party reference? If so, then I can show you as many supporting references as you want. Please let me know. - Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

about the banner

thank you for telling me the proper technique, i went ahead and took the seal into Photoshop and created a fully original logo, not hard to do with a standard font. i just was curious how UVa gets by with a logo on theirs and i cannot. thanks UkrNole 485 00:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The School of Computing (RGU)

An article that you have been involved in editing, The School of Computing (RGU), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The School of Computing (RGU). Thank you. Carlossuarez46 16:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm grateful. — mholland (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)