Talk:Fullerton College

Student Resources

I believe that the student resources segment should be removed. It feels like useless information since most all colleges in the United States have such resources. --Aikbix (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of wholesale removal. If you think it can be improved, by adding to, or rephrasing, better choice of words, or even by renaming that section, etc., then have at it. That is they way we usually work to improve Wiki articles.

But, this section of the article has some very unique history related to how the college coped with its unique start as an extension of the Fullerton Union High School district, the Great Depression, WWW II, etc. in its efforts to keep up with the demand for library resources. Such unique history is part of the important history of this College. Preserving unique history is an important goal of Wiki and most other encyclopedias too. It is a unique history, which many California Colleges do not have because they were created many years later, than 1913, and usually with more resources from the State, than FJC had when it started.

I suggest that you look at how the UCLA article is laid out. It has a separate section for its library system, which goes into considerable detail as to the history of the development of that library, in spite of the fact that there is a larger and separate article on that library system itself. It is because that history goes back into the last century and is unique, from all other colleges, that makes it notable information to be included in an encyclopedia article. Thank you for putting this idea up for discussion. EditorASC (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have restored this statement to the way it was, before it was improperly altered:

Fullerton College now has "state-of-the-art Library/Learning Resource Center; College Center with food court and student lounge; wireless internet access; Wellness Center; Service Learning; weekly campus newspaper; free tutoring in English, writing, and Math; state and national honor societies; Workforce Center; Transfer Center; and recently opened Aquatic Center."^[1]

It is NEVER proper to alter a quotation so that it appears to say something different than what was originally quoted. While one may disagree with part of the opinion of the reliable source that made that statement, the solution (if one thinks the statement is not accurate) is to find other reliable sources that would dispute that view. I repeat: It is NEVER proper for a Wiki Editor to cut out or alter part of a quotation, just because he does not agree with part of what was said in that quotation. Doing that amounts to OR on the part of that WE & violates the NPOV rule. EditorASC (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the information in this section can be merged with the history of the college. The first paragraph is the only segment that actually touches on the student resources as a whole, that paragraph feels as if it was written like an advertisement. I would also like to remind you that Fullerton College is a community college, not a full-blown university. Most of the resources within the college itself are hardly notable, though they are better than most other community colleges in the county. --Aikbix (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fc seal.gif

Image:Fc seal.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Is no longer a community college

Its now just a college.. its received its credidation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.155.134 (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of the wholesale cuts

I have reverted the article back to what it was before the new Wiki Editor Aikbix began cutting out major portions of the article, without any discussion or reasons given. While there are ways to improve this article, by correcting spellings, improving words and phrases, etc., I can see no rational justification for much that was arbitrarily removed by Editor Aikbix. Please explain your future edits, and if you think there is a good reason why some information should not be there, then discuss it here on this talk page, giving your reasons why. While you might not have intended to vandalize the article, it appears that is the only way to explain some of your cuts. EditorASC (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read the differences between both articles in the Fullerton College page before reverting. If you are going to do so, at least use the updated information, sidebar and remove everything that sounds like an advertisement.--Aikbix (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I read the differences and found that you could have easily tweaked some sentences and words, to improve them. That is the way we normally do it. But, when you want to remove significant portions of the previous article, you should come to this page and state what you think should be removed, and why. As to the photos that you removed, how do they qualify those as "weasel words and "advertisement?"

Other Wiki editors have no obligation to spend hours of their time to try and filter out the few parts of your revisions that might have actually been an improvement. When you make very large changes over a period of time, like you did, then the only reasonable way to restore most of what should be restored, is to do an entire revert back to the page before you started your wholesale cutting. EditorASC (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I had no intentions whatsoever at vandalism. I am a student at Fullerton college and I found the original page out-of-date and filled with useless information. I thought it'd only be necessary to fix it up and make it look nice, upload new images of the seal among other things. This is a complete misunderstanding and I find your vandalism report offensive. --Aikbix (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The history of Fullerton College is a very big part of the purpose of the article. If it happened, and is a relevant part of the College's history, then it should not be removed. You can up-date the article by adding and expanding that history with additional relevant information. It is not necessary, and it amounts to vandalism to remove relevant history that you do not personally like. That especially applies to photos. EditorASC (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As an independent observer I strongly disagree. Much of the material removed had no place in an encyclopedia (There are computers in the library???). THe edits appear to be in good faith. If you want to include history, it cannot be original research so should be referenced. Photos should not be put in for random reasons - they should illustrate something that is included in the text. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any bias against the history. If you are choosing to remove my contributions, at least remove things that include words like "cutting edge," "notable" and "well known." I originally removed the photos with the intent to add them back into a gallery later, though I never got around to it as I am not entirely familiar with the wiki code. At the very least, replace the sidebar and remove most of these department sections. By reverting it back to it's original state, you are giving the article out-of-date information. The history section was cut down due to the fact that a lot of it felt unnecessary or written improperly. Though you are more than welcome to correct it yourself. I am going to revert it back for now. --Aikbix (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, somebody already reverted it. --Aikbix (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)