Talk:Hampton University/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

Photos

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

• HABS or HAER photos may be available for this site. Search HABS/HAER here
• Seemingly all of the 17 photos accompanying NRHP document (linked in article) are taken by NPS employee and Federal NPS owned, hence public domain and can be used. Search NPS focus here, please select the highest resolution JPG versions
• New photos would be helpful.

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)

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 The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.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)

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)

You're being unnecessarily petty and combative as usual which is why I loathe dialogue with you. Instead of removing the cited fact because you didn't like it like you did, you should've started a talk page for discussion on if it should be removed or not and why. And you should've started the talk page because only you have a problem with it, I don't feel like a talk page on the matter is needed so I didn't start one. AND YOU CLEARLY DID NOT DO YOUR RESEARCH BECAUSE IF YOU DID YOU'LL KNOW THAT THEY RANK UNIVERSITIES BASED ON ALUMNI SATISFICATION AND SUCCESS ...... DUH!!!! Many universities have cited The Alumni Factor on their official website and many reputable publications has praised the new ranking system they invented so it's a legitimate ranking system. A simple google search validates everything I stated. See this is why I can't take you seriously, you don't do due diligence, you're not fair, and then you play the victim as if you're not in the wrong. Here is one of the MOST ELITE universities in the world, Rice University, citing their ranking on the Alumni Factor ... Rice AF Ranking. So many examples of Alumni Factor being prominently used and profiled online, ElKevbo simply don't know what he's talking about and is clearly ignorant on the matter. Broadmoor (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Calm down. It's perfectly acceptable to make edits without first discussing them.

If you know where this website documents their methodology, please provide the location; I've looked and I only found a vague description. And if you have examples of websites or documents that cite this ranking - not just self-serving ones from institutions that are boasting about their ranking - then please provide those, too. ElKevbo (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Broadmoor: Are you going to respond to my questions or should I seek out another editor to add his or her opinion? ElKevbo (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A Third Opinion has been requested. Unfortunately, what is obvious is that we have two editors who do not like each other, and have spent more energy in stating that dislike than in asking the question in a civil and concise manner. I am not providing an opinion, because I don't understand the question, and am leaving the question up in case someone can parse what the question is or the editors can explain concisely and civilly what the question is. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a Third Opinion. The website in question states "The outcomes measured by The Alumni Factor, and listed below, were chosen after significant consumer and sociological research about what students and parents are hoping to get out of their college experience.". Basically, it is a questionaire that uses some unknown scoring of each answer to provide a ranking. They go on to state that their ranking system is "the only college ranking list based on actual Alumni feedback." The Alumni Factor is not notable enough for its own article. I would be sceptical about including this reference in any article as there is not enough evidence provided that it is scientific and/or credible. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• The Alumni Factor is not yet a recognized measure, (but it has been discussed in the professional literature (so we should have an article on it in WP). -- see Chronicle of Higher Education, at [1]{http://chronicle.com/article/alumni-factor-rankings-could/134594] It seems to be a vague and unscientific measure of almni satisfaction with their college. It does not indicate "best college" in any other sense, and seems to measure primarily the strength of the almmni network. But it is not an accepted measure and cannot be used here. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hampton University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120429085943/http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/soverton/ to http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/soverton/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nfl.com/player/chrisbaker/2507557/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)