Talk:Fullerton College

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.

Higher education Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]