Jump to content

Talk:Hampton University: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
JJMC89 bot (talk | contribs)
subst /Comments to discontinue comments subpage) (AWB [12009]
Line 33: Line 33:
{{Substituted comment|length=276|lastedit=20061029183117|comment=needs inline citations [[User:Dinosaur puppy|<font style{{nw=}}"background:yellow" face{{nw=}}"Verdana" color{{nw=}}"darkgreen">T REX</font>]]<sub>[[User talk:Dinosaur puppy|<font style{{nw=}}"background:darkgreen" face{{nw=}}"Tahoma" color{{nw=}}"yellow"><b>speak</b></font>]]</sub> 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)}}
{{Substituted comment|length=276|lastedit=20061029183117|comment=needs inline citations [[User:Dinosaur puppy|<font style{{nw=}}"background:yellow" face{{nw=}}"Verdana" color{{nw=}}"darkgreen">T REX</font>]]<sub>[[User talk:Dinosaur puppy|<font style{{nw=}}"background:darkgreen" face{{nw=}}"Tahoma" color{{nw=}}"yellow"><b>speak</b></font>]]</sub> 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)}}
Substituted at 17:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Substituted at 17:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

== Alumni Factor ranking ==

I recently removed a reference to [https://www.alumnifactor.com/top-177-colleges Alumni Factor] with a request with a note asking that editors "please discuss in Talk why this should be included in this (or any other) article e.g., no concrete description of methodology, no evidence of noteworthiness)." Instead of discussing anything in Talk or presenting any evidence, [[User:Broadmoor|Broadmoor]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hampton_University&oldid=prev&diff=724258193 reverted] my edit with an edit summary of "Read the website and it's growing in popularity as one of the premier ranking publications." First, I have read the website and it has no specific details about its methodology. Second, we have no evidence whatsoever that the website is either "growing in popularity" or a "premier ranking publication." [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 10:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:30, 8 June 2016

Fair use rationale for Image:HamptonU.jpg

Image:HamptonU.jpg 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 ensure 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) 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

The photo has some illustrations but additional photos and/or photo uploads are needed to improve the article.


School shooting

I added a section about the recent 2009 shooting according to the suggested standard of larger school shootings to be featured in standalone articles and smaller school shootings to be featured under their respective school's page. As with the University of Pécs shooting for example. SerialKillerWiki (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hampton University/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations T REXspeak 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 17:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Alumni Factor ranking

I recently removed a reference to Alumni Factor with a request with a note asking that editors "please discuss in Talk why this should be included in this (or any other) article e.g., no concrete description of methodology, no evidence of noteworthiness)." Instead of discussing anything in Talk or presenting any evidence, Broadmoor reverted my edit with an edit summary of "Read the website and it's growing in popularity as one of the premier ranking publications." First, I have read the website and it has no specific details about its methodology. Second, we have no evidence whatsoever that the website is either "growing in popularity" or a "premier ranking publication." ElKevbo (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]