Jump to content

User talk:Milkbaba: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Milkbaba (talk | contribs)
156 edits
Milkbaba (talk | contribs)
156 edits
Line 132: Line 132:
Personally, I would focus on finding additional secondary sources about the program, as that's the best hope for the article if it gets nominated again. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 02:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I would focus on finding additional secondary sources about the program, as that's the best hope for the article if it gets nominated again. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 02:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


The article that was originally deleted was a much different article that lacked any sources outside of Yale and that was seriously bloated with unverifiable comments. This article is a much more trimmed down piece that focuses on basic facts about the program. I think most if not all of the deletion arguments from the original article have been resolved. Yes Yale is notable, and no notability is not necessarily inheritable, but this program again is a distinct admissions program within Yale College with its own administrative and academic dean, office, admissions process, etc. Further, since the Hashemi controversy of 2006, the program has now gotten media coverage outside Yale. Subsequently the article has references from the NYT and WSJ which comment specifically on the program, its features, and its current shape. Though some of the NYT and WSJ content is primarily focused on Hashemi, there is considerable background info. that notes the program. I'm concerned again that editors here are bias towards small/obscure topics. I think this has a lot to do with the controversy over notability and what constitutes encyclopedia-worthy articles. It is interesting that no editor yet on Wikipedia will directly address this issue. Instead there is an obsessive focus on Wkipedia protocol and policy, which seems legitimate only within Wikipedia but not necessarily valid in the real editorial world.
The article that was originally deleted was a much different article that lacked any sources outside of Yale and that was seriously bloated with unverifiable comments. This article is a much more trimmed down piece that focuses on basic facts about the program. I think most if not all of the deletion arguments from the original article have been resolved. Yes Yale is notable, and no notability is not necessarily inheritable, but this program again is a distinct admissions program within Yale College with its own administrative and academic dean, office, admissions process, etc. Further, since the Hashemi controversy of 2006, the program has now gotten media coverage outside Yale. Subsequently the article has references from the NYT and WSJ which comment specifically on the program, its features, and its current shape. Though some of the NYT and WSJ content is primarily focused on Hashemi, there is considerable background info. that notes the program. I'm concerned again that editors here are bias against small/obscure topics. I think this has a lot to do with the controversy over notability and what constitutes encyclopedia-worthy articles. It is interesting that no editor yet on Wikipedia will directly address this issue when I raise it. Instead there is an obsessive focus on Wikipedia protocol and policy, which seems legitimate within the purview of Wikipedia but not necessarily in the real editorial world.

I'm sorry, biased "against" small/obscure topics [see above para.]

Revision as of 04:24, 2 December 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Milkbaba, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like The Eli Whitney Students Program, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! arunkumarcheckmate me 05:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Eli Whitney Students Program

A tag has been placed on The Eli Whitney Students Program, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Template:Do not delete arunkumarcheckmate me 05:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, The Eli Whitney Students Program, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.yaledailynews.com/scene/scene-cover/2009/11/13/not-your-typical-gap-year/. As a copyright violation, The Eli Whitney Students Program appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. The Eli Whitney Students Program has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Eli Whitney Students Program

A tag has been placed on Eli Whitney Students Program, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. arunkumarcheckmate me 05:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Eli Whitney Students Program. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.Template:Do not delete arunkumarcheckmate me 05:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Eli Whitney Student Program, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Eli Whitney Students Program has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. —C.Fred (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you had indicated that all of the text was direct quotations, it should have been written in original text, not by stringing together the words of the Yale website and campus paper. —C.Fred (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User:Milkbaba. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The box above is a template. This is a personal message. You have been blocked for disruptive behavior, which included persistent recreation of a page which constituted a copyright violation, as well as offensive user page. Please examine Wikipedia:Copyright violations and relevant pages linked in the infobox on the right, as well as Wikipedia:Civility. Once you feel ready to comply with those basic rules of wikipedia, you may request an unblock as outlined above. Materialscientist (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Milkbaba (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have now read the rules for copyrighted materials and will comply with them. I am working on the Eli Whitney Students Page to ensure that a future version will conform to all Wikipedia copyright and citation rules. I will also refrain from offensive and/or slanderous comments against others in the future. Thank you

Decline reason:

There was also a bit more than just copyright issues. Please be sure to read up on our conflict of interest, advertising, and notability guidelines for inclusion, as well, as it would seem that they especially pertain to your situation. --slakr\ talk / 22:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Milkbaba (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Wow, Slakr, I don't know where to begin. First and foremost, let me preface this conversation by expressing how appalled I am at the Wikipedia editors, including yourself. Please do not be fooled for a minute into thinking that what you or your organization is doing is to actually disseminate knowledge and free information for the furtherance of society. How I see it, you militate against knowledge and freedom by selecting in a clandestine manner what in your opinion is genuine knowledge. Unfortunately, editorial consensus is not necessarily truth. I think you all need to come down from your high horses and properly review articles based on their ability to disburse accurate knowledge about legitimate topics. All of the reasons you give for expunging this article and blocking me are spurious. The article is not advertising. It is not a conflict of interest based on my own wish to self-promote nor does it lack reliable secondary sourcing. The Eli Whitney Students Program has existed for over 25 years and is a legitimate part of Yale College. Why then can't their be an article on it? To say that the Yale Daily or the Yale College Admission website are not credible sources of information is ludicrous. There has been little coverage on the program outside Yale because it is so small, selective and for a long time, kept on the back burner. If you finally allow me back on, I can amend the article to include a NYT's reference. One last question: do you plan on continuing to block me with little cause or does Wikipedia actually conform to real rules for due process of those accused?

Decline reason:

This does not address the issues above, and indicates that you intend to continue the same behavior that led to your block, namely editing with a conflict of interest and using wikipedia to promote an entity. Jayron32 04:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|Jayron, actually I addressed the reasons quite well. I am still waiting to hear a rational and well-reasoned argument from editors, rather than the usual invocation of protocol that gives short shrift to specific problems with the article itself. For the last time, the article is NOT a conflict of interest. It is making more available important information that any 'encyclopedia' would find useful: it describes a specific institutional facet of Yale College that is now two decades old but which lacks reference in Wikipedia. The article is also not promoting anything; it merely describes in as objective a manner possible the primary features and characteristics that constitute the program. Further to that, the content is well described in various sources beyond the Yale website, including the NYT, the Wall Street Journal, and the Yale Daily. If I were unblocked I could fine-tune the article accordingly. Apparently there are few opportunities in Wikipedia's domain for recourse and genuine appeal. I think it would only be fair that you allow people who contribute to have a second chance once they are more informed about certain policies (which I have now read) and have identified the key problems with their articles (which I have done). I thought that this was supposed to be an experiment in open-source collaboration, not censorship?}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

The user was offered a second chance and complied with the request. Since (s)he appears to be understand the actions for which warnings were issued and to behave properly in the future, unblocking is warranted.

Request handled by: —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

  • If you hadn't made the second unblock request—specifically, the attacking language against Wikipedia editors—I would've said yes, you probably should get a second chance. I have reservations now. That said, I'm willing to consider whether you can contribute a properly-constructed article. My recommendation is to draft (tip: draft it offline in the text editor or word processor of your choice, and then upload to Wikipedia in one step) a replacement article for EWSP. It must be written in original prose; do not rely on any direct quote from your source text longer than one sentence, but do cite your sources. When you've drafted the article, place it in a new section of this talk page. If you present a reasonable candidate article that complies with the restriction above, I'll endorse your unblocking.
Remember that blocks are preventative, not punitive. You're not being blocked as punishment for your prior actions but to prevent recurrence. This is an opportunity to demonstrate that you do understand the guidelines and can contribute without violating them. —C.Fred (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for submitting the candidate article below. My comments are at the end. I have notified Materialscientist of the unblock request. I have also notified Jayron32, who made the most recent decline of an unblock, of your new request, your response below, and my opinions on your adherence to guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate Article for Consideration: "Eli Whitney Students Program"

Hello editors,

Please see the revised article under consideration. Please also reconsider my current block status. Hopefully you will see that the article now contains entirely original phrasing, has four sources, including a very well known New York Times article, and attempts to present an unbiased, objective enumeration of the program's basic features. I look forward to your comments...

The Eli Whitney Students Program is an admissions program designed to attract students from non-traditional backgrounds to Yale College. Students admitted through the program study either part or full-time and receive either a B.A. or a B.S. from Yale. The program was created from the mission of Yale College, which places a premium on leadership and public service.[1]

Started in 1982 for people who do not complete college at the traditional age due to various reasons, the Eli Whitney Students Program usually admits only eight to twelve people annually. For 2009 it admitted eight and in 2007 it admitted only two students.[2] The program is unique among Ivy League schools. Unlike other non-traditional student programs such as the Harvard Extension School or the Columbia University School of General Studies, Eli Whitney students are first and foremost Yale College students and take all of their classes and receive all of their advising within Yale College. [3] Eli Whitney students do not live in residential colleges, though they are members of one. They receive all of the residential college and university services provided to traditional Yale College students, and have complete access to Yale facilities, student organizations and libraries. Eli Whitney students are fully eligible for Yale's need-based financial aid up to the cost of tuition.

Admissions standards used to evaluate Eli Whitney students mirror those applied to traditional Yale college applicants.[4] However, while Eli Whitney candidates are subject to the same academic standards as regular Yale College candidates, in assessing more mature applicants, greater weight is given to achievement than to potential.[5] The program gets its name from the inventor Eli Whitney, who in 1789 at the age of 23, matriculated into Yale College.[6]

Notes

  1. ^ Template:Http://www.yale.edu/admit/other/whitney/index.html
  2. ^ Template:Http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/06/nyregion/06yale.html
  3. ^ Template:Http://www.yaledailynews.com/scene/scene-cover/2009/11/13/not-your-typical-gap-year/
  4. ^ Template:Http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/06/nyregion/06yale.html
  5. ^ Template:Http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/university-news/2007/03/02/eli-whitney-review-nears-completion/
  6. ^ Template:Http://www.yale.edu/admit/other/whitney/index.html

References

Chow, Kimberly. “Eli Whitney Review Nears Completion”, The Yale Daily News March 2, 2007

Claudel, Matthew, Lee, Amy, Lund, Kate and Sharif, Amir. “Not Your Typical Gap Year”, The Yale Daily News, November 13, 2009

Finder, Alan. “A Taliban Past, and a Cloudy Yale Future”, The New York Times July 6, 2006


http://www.yale.edu/admit/other/whitney/index.html (The Yale College Admissions Website)

Comments from other editors

I compared the article against the supplied sources and found that, while each section with a reference contained facts attributable to that source, it did not contain the phrasing of the wording. I found one apparent factual error where an uncited section was contradicted by a source (per one source, students are not eligible for financial aid; however, I did not check the source further to see if it had old data).

Accordingly, Milkbaba has completed the request: the article candidate does not infringe copyright. While I can see concerns that the article may not stand up AfD (or may need merged into the Yale College article), I do feel there is a sufficient assertion of significance to make it not subject to speedy deletion under A7. The text is neutral, so G11 does not apply, and G12 was already addressed. —C.Fred (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what article did you read that financial aid is not available? That is old data. The program provides full financial aid access as of 2009.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkbaba (talk • contribs)
I was asked to comment as a blocking admin. My concerns were basic: disruptive behavior, copyright and promotion. I am worried by some comments in one of the unblock requests, but I AGF that the user wishes to improve WP and I don't oppose the unblock. I've read the article draft, but don't have specific comments (weak, but no strong oppose). Thus my support for (i) constructive editing by the user and (ii) re-blocking if signs of disruption reappear (such as, e.g. the text on the user page which I deleted). Materialscientist (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have successfully resolved any previous issues related to copyright. Possible disruptive behavior has also been tackled; now that I fully understand the rules and issues, I will comply with them. I apologize about the earlier talk page post that some editors took as slander. I was frustrated with the editorial process at Wikipedia but have since become restrained and respectful. Therefore the only current concern that I can think of is this precarious issue of promotion. Please understand something about the EWS Program: it is an admissions program at Yale College. It is not a society or organization other than to provide some very informal mentoring/social networking opportunities once EW students are formally matriculated at Yale. Therefore its very institutional nature is focused on admissions dimensions only. If it looks like the article is advertising for the program, it is because the primary service that the program provides is a non-traditional admissions door into Yale College. It would be unfair to censor this article or demand it to be anything else but a description of the program's key admissions features. Essentially, it would ironically lead to misinformation by misrepresenting to the Wikipedia public the actual purpose and structure of the program. This is not to say that some other articles cannot be found to further corroborate the program's objectives/features, etc. Once unblocked, I would be able to put the page back up. As long as it is not subject to a speedy delete, others familiar with the program can collaborate to incorporate additional reliable secondary source material and make the article stronger and fully compliant with Wikipedia quality standards.

Regarding C.fred's comments on my talk page; I have no problems with any deal he has made here regarding an unblock. I was not the blocking administrator, and my "permission" is not needed. If he has set conditions for an unblock, and he feels those conditions are met, there will be no objection from me if he unblocks this user. --Jayron32 18:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Unblock|Thanks guys, so where do we go from here? It appears Materialscientist issued the initial block, and Jayron upheld it. Both of you left favorable comments expressing confidence that previous concerns were resolved. Given that three editors have approved of the new content, I would like to request that you please unblock me so that I can get this article up and allow for subsequent revision/tightening by others familiar with the program}}

The unblock was handled above. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would anybody like to discuss "reliable secondary sources"? It appears that the Eli Whitney Students Program page has now been tagged for not meeting the "general notability" requirements of Wikipedia. General notability states that the article needs to be supported by reliable objective sources that are neutral and independent of the topic. With the exception of the Yale website, all other sources enumerated within the page are reliable and completely objective. The Yale Daily News has a very high standard for journalism and its reporting on the Eli Whitney Program is a genuine reflection of the program's existence as part of the Yale institution. Also, the NYT is cited which further corroborates the fact that this program has been reported on outside of Yale and is therefore recognized as a legitimate admissions program. It is frustrating and disheartening to see the article targeted by Wikipedia editors simply because it is a small more obscure page while other pages suffer from even worse standards (lack of sources, self-interest/promotion ambiguity, weak sources from promotional websites only, etc.). I could go on and on about the many articles which fly past the radar. This is a double standard, simply put. This article stands on its own and is properly supported by unbiased, reliable, secondary sources. I would appreciate it if editors come to terms with this fact by doing there own research into the veracity and legitimacy of the pages' sources BEFORE tagging it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkbaba (talk • contribs)

There is a degree of interpretation with notability; please see Talk:Eli Whitney Students Program for my comment and removal of the notability tag (well, substitution with the {{refimprove}} tag, since the Yale Daily News is not independent). However, see also my comment there about merging the article in as a section of Yale College. —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more note about the EWSP article

There was a prior article about the program, longer than the current one, but it was deleted as a result of discussion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eli Whitney Students Program). Those are the arguments that will be in play if somebody nominates the article for deletion again. I'd also look over criterion for speedy deletion G4, reposting previously-deleted material: the article, in its current form, could be subject to deletion under that.

Personally, I would focus on finding additional secondary sources about the program, as that's the best hope for the article if it gets nominated again. —C.Fred (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article that was originally deleted was a much different article that lacked any sources outside of Yale and that was seriously bloated with unverifiable comments. This article is a much more trimmed down piece that focuses on basic facts about the program. I think most if not all of the deletion arguments from the original article have been resolved. Yes Yale is notable, and no notability is not necessarily inheritable, but this program again is a distinct admissions program within Yale College with its own administrative and academic dean, office, admissions process, etc. Further, since the Hashemi controversy of 2006, the program has now gotten media coverage outside Yale. Subsequently the article has references from the NYT and WSJ which comment specifically on the program, its features, and its current shape. Though some of the NYT and WSJ content is primarily focused on Hashemi, there is considerable background info. that notes the program. I'm concerned again that editors here are bias against small/obscure topics. I think this has a lot to do with the controversy over notability and what constitutes encyclopedia-worthy articles. It is interesting that no editor yet on Wikipedia will directly address this issue when I raise it. Instead there is an obsessive focus on Wikipedia protocol and policy, which seems legitimate within the purview of Wikipedia but not necessarily in the real editorial world.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Milkbaba&oldid=329182554"