Wikipedia

Talk:Nevada State University/Archive 1

< Talk:Nevada State University
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Opening comments

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please do not add advertising to Wikipedia pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.128.18 (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I recently edited sections to add full context and also deleted two sections that show poster's bias (poster= NevadaLux). If you have problem with this, let's discuss it. I do not think one should bias an article like this with a section on "Low Enrollments" based on a single program that was cut. Many new schools cut programs when they are not working out. NSC's enrollment gains as a total institutions have actually been much higher percentagewise than UNLV or UNR. Furthermore, I cut out the misleading biased section about some lenders cutting off their listings at NSC. Lenders all over the country are cutting of their listings of schools all over the country. Inclusion of this material is biased and does not meet the standards applied to other college and university entries. Ousmane3 Ousmane3 (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Ousmane3(talk) 04:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Ousmane3—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ousmane3 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"The college’s student population since 2002 has increased by over 1100 percent." [[1]] They started with 176 students and now have 2,196 students. Not exactly low enrollments there--much higher than NSHE reports of UNLV or UNR (see NSHE BOR tables). It is not that I think this info should be included, but I think the inaccurate misleading info you are peddling should not be. Ousmane3 (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Ousmane3 Ousmane3 (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Ousmane3 03:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Ousmane3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ousmane3 (talk • contribs)

Reply left on Mediation page

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In reply to the above unsigned comments, I would say that the material concerns Nevada State College (NSC) and is therefore not "extraneous". As for section headings, they reflect the information from the source quoted. The sources themselves are the leading newspapers in the Las Vegas area. I am guided by Wiki policy rather than what may or may not be there on other pages (like UNR or UNLV). By checking the history of this page you can see that it has a problem of advertising-like links being added repeatedly. I request the author desist from removing sourced relevant material. As for the personal attacks like "unethical" etc., I choose not to respond. Thanks, LuxNevada (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to LuxNevada

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

First of all, it is highly unorthodox to be discussing current campus or system politics in an _encyclopedia article_ about a college campus. If the user wants to talk about these things I would suggest he or she build a blog to do so. We can easily add this a link to this so he/she can continue to discuss _current events_ not the kind of relevant germane basic material an _encyclopedia article_ is supposed to provide. Second, the user in question added an inaccurate heading "Low Enrollments" when in fact the college in question has had a "1100 percent" increase in enrollments since it opened in 2002.[1] If anything, we might want to change it to "High Enrollments" but again I don't think that kind of assertion is germane to an _encyclopedia article_. He or she made this assertion based on cutting of a single program--highly dubious. Third, I have never before made edits to this page and was just casually surfing it a few days ago when I was almost overblown by the misleading headings, mentions of news tidbits that are not germane to an _encyclopedia entry_, etc. I am also upset that user in question removed links I added such as the campus newspaper and additional majors that have been added--again another example of bias. I have been viewing college and university entries for more than five years and have never encountered discussions of these sorts of things, outside the usual piece of graffiti which is usually quickly removed. It is my belief the user in question has a personal grudge against the college and is "surfing and sorting" to find tidbits which properly placed might make the college look bad. To me, this is grafitti. Ousmane3 (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Ousmane3

References

  1. ^ http://www.nsc.nevada.edu/Information/About/NSCatGlance.htm

Removal of posts by others from Talk pages

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ousmane, I think you need to familiarize yourself with the way Wiki works. Removing posts by others from talk pages is not encouraged. Calling material that is sourced and relevant vandalism and removing it isn't going to work either. If you feel that a personal attack has been made on you, you should explain specifically what the attack was. As far as personal attacks go, I can specifically point to personal attacks by you, for example calling my behavior "highly unethical" [[2]] and saying that "user in question has a personal grudge against the college" [[3]]. You should assume good faith that editors are working to improve Wikipedia by removing advertising etc. I have ignored your personal attacks as it seems to me that you are not familiar with Wiki policy, but kindly refrain from doing so in the future. LuxNevada (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Truce

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Fine. You win. Add and paste at will. I wash my hands of this. Ousmane3 (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Ousmane3

Closing the case

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ousmane, I suppose that means you would like this issue to be considered resolved. In that case you should close this case. For example remove the mediation notice from this page and cabal case page. Also if another edit war breaks out on this article, for example through the use of sock puppets, then the information you have removed may find its way back. LuxNevada (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thinly disguised advertising?

Latest comment: 16 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion

This page has a history of advertising and now it appears that the efforts are getting more sophisticated. There are edits by 1wordster who has no other contributions to Wiki expect to add material to this page. Quoting NSC "officials" who referred to their own institution as a "Small But Growing College" in an obscure publication called "South Valley Home News" is a bit too transparent. Publicity statements like "Graduating students recognized the role that the faculty played throughout their college careers and the connection they felt to Nevada State College." do not belong in a Wiki article, but I am leaving it here for the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuxNevada (talk • contribs) 23:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to LuxNevada

I am appalled at your attempts to relay your biased opinion about Nevada State College to the readers of Wikipedia. Although it is true that I have only edited NSC’s page on Wikipedia and no other articles, the reasoning behind it was the fact that I was disgusted by the fact that such a biased view of the college was being presented and decided that something had to be done about it.

As you should be aware, Wikipedia places a great emphasis on ensuring that all articles are written in NPOV, specifically, “When it comes to a case when conflicting perspectives exist, ‘each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight.’ Therefore, I believe I am doing what should have been done long time ago which is presenting the readers with the whole picture rather than leaving the article in its clearly biased state. Again, if you refer to Wikipedia’s NPOV guidelines, “when editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed” which is what I am trying to do here.

In addition, your efforts to relay your point of view via clearly biased headlines and certain paragraphs placement is against Wikipedia policies. It is against Wikipedia’s guidelines to arrange “formatting, headers, footnotes or other elements that appear to unduly favor a particular “side” of the issue”. This is exactly what you have done.

After going through the Wikipedia guidelines thoroughly, I realized that we both should stay away from clearly biased headings and include both sides of the issues under each section. So, after gaining detailed knowledge of Wikipedia’s policies, I wanted to do both of us a favor and relay a neutral point of view in headlines such as Enrollments or Graduation so that such sections could include materials from different points of view. Instead, you chose to reverse my changes and keep you clearly biased headings. As stated in one of Wikipedia’s policies, “a neutral article is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.” It is clearly stated in the guidelines that headings should not include emotive words.

Now, most likely, you are going to argue that because your facts are both verifiable and cited, they have to be included in the article, regardless of their bias. Again, there is a clear policy regarding this point of view. “Verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited“. Therefore, the fact that you chose to cite an article that talks about “low enrollment” based on a single program is against Wikipedia policies. If you take a look at a citation (one that was ultimately removed by you) which indicated NSC experienced “1100 % growth” since its inception, you would probably agree with me that such figure does not support the “low enrollment” claim. The fact that you got one article that mentions a couple of program cancellations at NSC is not enough evidence to assume that the school as a whole is experiencing low enrollment. Furthermore, the fact that you chose to keep your sources such as Rebel Yell and Las Vegas Sun and remove NSHE reports as a viable source is ridiculous. Although NSC is part of NSHE, Nevada System of Higher Education is a government body through constitutional statute that offers much more reliable information than opinion articles from the Las Vegas Sun. Refer to Wikipedia: Reliable Sources for the following excerpt, “great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact.”

I look forward to your response. If we do not find a common ground where we can have an article on NSC include different ideas on the same page, without placing undue weight to marginal opinions, I am planning on taking this to mediation. I do hope that we can find a compromise regarding this issue. Respectfully, 1wordster (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what your grievance is? I think you find the article to be showing a particular point of view. If you read it carefully, you will find that it is composed on non-controversial facts. Yes, the graduation rate is terrible, and the school has been laying off employees due to budget cuts. Mention of these would seem to give article a negative slant. However these are established facts, and also important/relevant. Hence their inclusion. I suppose that to change the article to your satisfaction would require the removal of these facts, but that would not be proper as per Wiki policy.
Can you be more specific about what changes that you actually seek? Would you like information about the graduation rate removed? Or about the layoffs? Or that the Provost said that some majors may be ended? Are you saying that the news article that had the graduation rate at 16% is an "opinion piece"?
As for the 1,100% growth, that is a rather silly number that results from a small base from which the growth occurs. If you want you can include that number, but also put in the base number (which I guess will be about 2,100/12 < 190).
You seem to have little understanding of the fact that Wikipedia frowns upon institutions using its pages as advertisements. That is the reason I took out things from NSHE sources.
Regards, LuxNevada (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I have included all information about budget cuts and consequences into one section, which reduces the number of sections with what you will probably consider "negative headlines" by one. LuxNevada (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
REPLY TO LUXNEVADA
Please consider this message a penultimate step to formal mediation.
It is apparent that you are engaging in an intellectually dishonest use of Wikipedia to advance, it would seem, a distorted view of the subject in question. Your treatment of (and arguments for) continuing such unethical editorial behavior smacks of either outright ignorance concerning Wikipedia policies (most notably NPOV) or hypocrisy of the worst kind.
A cursory review of your most recent exchange with 1wordster is fraught with disingenuous double standards. Take, for instance, your statement below in response to 1wordster’s accusation of unfairly repackaging information without regard to context. It captures so well the troubled logic on which you’ve largely relied to further a non-neutral perspective on the subject in question.
“As for the 1,100% growth, that is a rather silly number that results from a small base from which the growth occurs. If you want you can include that number, but also put in the base number (which I guess will be about 2,100/12 < 190).
Your response is hypocritical at best and outright duplicitous at worst. First, your response diminishes the college’s factual growth rate (a verifiable number) by labeling it as “silly”, suggesting to 1wordster that such a number could be considered less “silly” if proper context was provided (i.e., - providing the base number of the college’s first year of enrollment).
It would seem that your argument – that 1wordster provide more context to facts or that facts not be taken out of context – should also be applied to your edits as well. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
To use your “silliness standard”, it seems silly to me that one could produce the following entries below without regard to or reference of appropriate context or source. It would seem to me (and, I would imagine, to others who favor intellectual honesty in journalism) that you have purposely engaged in significant non-neutral fact selection and wording to advance a personal view, while at the same time masquerading or justifying your behavior under the guise of verifiability (i.e., - “If it’s citable, then I’m guiltless of any wrongdoing).
“Nevada State College has suffered from low enrollments, which has led to the possibility of majors being ended.”
I find several faults with this statement. First, you cite an editorial position from a local newspaper. To use your phrase, this is an “opinion piece” – a source on which little credence should be based. Second, this opinion piece indicates that the college has experienced low enrollments in one of its programs. You mislead readers with this citation by suggesting that enrollments are low in more than one program (something the citation does not support) and that more than one program is being considered for elimination (also something the citation does not support) and that the opinion piece is wholly focused on highlighting the college’s enrollment woes (something the citation pays minimal attention to in light of its larger message of crediting universities and colleges for removing underperforming programs).
“Due to the ongoing budget cuts Las Vegas Sun has reported that Nevada State College is secretly laying off staff. These layoffs could hurt student services such as counseling and financial aid.”
I find two unacceptable and slanderous faults with this statement. First, you fail to provide proper context. Consider the paragraph below (the lengthiest paragraph of a four-paragraph story). Your story suggests that the college is unilaterally secretive about downsizing. As anyone can see below, the Nevada System of Higher Education opted to protect workers’ identity, which resulted in the college not disclosing titles. Second, you plagiarize the opening clause of the first sentence.
“The layoffs could hurt student services such as counseling and financial aid, but it's difficult to tell which departments are suffering most. Nevada System of Higher Education officials said to protect workers' privacy, colleges could not reveal the titles of the people they dismissed.”
Taken together (your outright misconstrued take on “secret” downsizing coupled with your outright plagiarism), these transgressions suggest a total and willful disregard for ethical journalism. Your entries are better suited for a personal blog; yet, in essence, you’ve hijacked the fundamental objectives of Wikipedia’s mission and have treated this subject entry as your personal diary.
“Nevada State College has a low graduation rate, graduating only 16% of the full-time freshmen students who joined in 2002 class by 2008. This graduation rate is one-third of the graduation rate of California's public state colleges.”
I find a large fault with this statement. I do not dispute the content (perhaps I should given the previous two examples). Rather, I’m concerned that it appears twice in the entry – once in the introduction (which is highly suspect to begin with) and later in the body. It would seem, in connection with the previous two examples (and I haven’t even made my way out of the opening paragraph / introduction yet), that such redundancy is propagandistic in nature.
Related to the last example is the skewed representation of and order with negatively slanted headlines such as low graduation rates, budget cuts, vacant teaching positions, secret layoffs, and understaffed student services. A cursory review of past edits suggests that the organization of the entry is based solely on your preference. And, as we’ve seen, your preferences are not informed by ethical considerations, but rather by personal motivations.
It is interesting to note that no other institution within the Nevada System of Higher Education has received such interest (the type provided by you) on its Wikipedia entries. Why have you taken such an interest in the college? Clearly, it’s not the love of journalistic objectivism that keeps you coming back to this entry.
It’s apparent that your ability to seek out and hold to neutrality is broken, and in my opinion, beyond repair. It is for this reason that I am seeking formal mediation. This needs to move beyond the point of silliness.--Tikal323 (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Tikal323

Is Tika1323 another Sockpuppet?

Tika1323 seems to be another account set up just to edit this article. First there was Ousmane3 who spent some on this article before he decided that he didn't want his editing history on Wiki to be exposed so he left [[4]] Next came along 1wordster whose only contribution was to this article, and who (like Ousmane3) wanted "mediation". Now we have a brand new tika1323 whose entire contribution to Wiki is the above post, who also wants "mediation". This is getting to be a bit tiring. LuxNevada (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is LuxNevada a Former Disgruntled Employee?

Suggesting that I am a sockpuppet because I am new to Wikipedia is baseless. Adopting your logic and use of ad hominem attacks, I could suggest that you are a former disgruntled employee of the college based on the large number of questionable edits (30) you have made to this entry since May 2008.

Please desist with the speculation and ad hominem argumentation, and address the points in my first entry. --Tikal323 (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki policy is indifferent to whether I am a disgruntled former employee or an exhilarated future employer. Wiki however does frown on the use of sockpuppets with the intention of hiding one's past identity.
As for the "points" in your entry, they are rather inane. For example you write "I find a large fault with this statement... I’m concerned that it appears twice in the entry – once in the introduction (which is highly suspect to begin with) and later in the body... such redundancy is propagandistic in nature." You really need to familiarize yourself with Wiki beyond adding references to your own work or visiting only this particular article. It is quite standard Wiki practice to mention important points both in the introduction and body. As for "redundancy is propagandistic in nature", you are not longer in liberal arts academia, try to use language like normal people do. LuxNevada (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If I may provide a suggestion

I have created in my userspace two temporary copies of the article as it currently stands. Perhaps, instead of arguing, LuxNevada can edit this copy, while Tikal323 and 1wordster can edit this copy. After the temorary articles have reached the state their editors wish, we can discuss and attempt to reach a consensus about how the various changes can be merged into the main article. Horselover Frost (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Horselover, I like the idea. However there is a hitch. This page has been edited multiple times by Ousmane3, 1wordstar and Tikal323. It seems pretty obvious that some of these were set up explicitly with the purpose of editing this page. Suppose we come to a "compromise" page that has, say 1wordstar's agreement. What is to prevent Tikal323 or Ousmane3 to return and want to change it? Maybe a sockpuppet check could be done on these 3 editors, or they could voluntarily confess about sockpuppetery. Till then it seems a bit futile to try to reach any kind of "compromise". Of course, I do think that as the article currently stands, it is well referenced and provides relevant information to the reader. If something explicitly inappropriate by Wiki standards is pointed out I would be willingly to change it. Thanks for your efforts, LuxNevada (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
And while we are listing the various possible sockpuppets, let's not forget editor Editcontent. LuxNevada (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the version that Horselover created for me. LuxNevada (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've looked over your changes. While I would still like to see the other side's desired page, I do have two suggestions that may help with reaching a consensus, and with improving the page overall.
1 - I would recommend moving the information regarding the problems the college is experiencing into a single section, titled "controversy" or "problems" or something similar. This will overall make the page more organized and easier to read.
2 - I thing the information about the hard of hearing program is worthy of a brief mention. Perhaps just "Starting in the Fall of 2008, Nevada State College will launch the state’s first bachelor of science degree in education for deaf and hard of hearing." with the reference.
Also I would like to note that, in hopes of keeping the peace, I am choosing not to make any judgement regarding the existence of sockpuppetry. If anyone feels there is some going on, they should mention it to an administrator.
I hope you find this helpful. Horselover Frost (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey Horselover (love horses myself!), I find your suggestions reasonable. As for combining the "problems", I think two sections would be appropriate. One section about the current problems the college is facing with budget cuts, layoffs etc. The second one about graduation rates (which is a problem distinct from budget cuts and is very relevant information for students seeking degrees). Regards, LuxNevada (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I have combined two sections on "problems" into one section, and restored information about degree for deaf. LuxNevada (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. What if there were a single section on problems, divided into two or more subsections like "Graduation" or "Budget, enrollment, and student services"? Or, instead of subsections, you could just write a bulleted list of the problems. SunDragon34 (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess I could do a section and sub-sections. LuxNevada (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just re-wrote the draft as per SunDragon34's suggestion. Thanks, LuxNevada (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted Tikal323 and 1wordster on their respective talk pages, inviting them to share their opinions on this discussion. I did not contact Ousmane3, since they expressed a desire to separate themselves from the matter, but of course they are welcome to comment as well. Additionally, I have created a third temporary page in my userspace here, and have made a few changes to the version proposed by LuxNevada. For the most part, I removed redundant information from the introduction that was also located in the body. However, if an editor feels that some mention of the problems at the college must be found in the introduction, I would not be adverse to adding something akin to "The college has been suffering from some difficulties in recent years" (hopefully something better written than my example, though...). Additionally, I added some comparative data about national graduation rates, to justify NSC's rates being called 'low'. Lastly, and leastly, I made a few cosmetic changes to the reference layout, since my rather poor wikicoding skills couldn't make heads or tails of the original layout. Hopefully these changes will prove consensusable. Horselover Frost (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I replaced my version by Horselover's version with one change. I added the line "The college has been suffering from budget cuts, low graduation rates and low enrollments in recent years" to the introduction. Regards, LuxNevada (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I have re-worded the introduction (in my version) to improve clarity, specifically removing the six-year graduation rate from the sentence clarified by "in recent years" and comparing it to the national average. LuxNevada (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing for neutrality

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I realize there's been recent edit warring on this article, so I'll try to explain each of my edits thoroughly.

First, the (hopefully) uncontroversial edit: I've taken each paragraph of the "Other Information" section and moved them, unedited, into appropriate subsections. This was done for organization purposes, not NPOV purposes. If the sections could be reordered for improved flow, please go ahead; I've ordered them arbitrarily.
Second, on graduation rate, I've cut the intro to a single sentence summary, and retained only the most relevant facts in the section on graduation rate. Because NPOV is disputed in this article, I've been careful not to call the graduation rate low. The point of view that 16% is low should be attributed to the people who actually say so in the sources, unless and until it can be established as the only significant point of view.
Third, the monster section title, "Budget Cuts, Vacant Teaching Positions," etc. "Budget" will do. This is primarily a style edit but also addresses a potential undue weight issue.
Fourth, original research. Crystal ball claims such as "layoffs could hurt student services such as counseling and financial aid" shouldn't be made in an NPOV disputed article, because none of those services are talked about in the source. If one of the other sources does discuss the possible cutting back of services, I apologize, I didn't see it -- please cite that source directly next to the claim.

Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Matt, a few issues with your edits.
  • 1) The re-writing of this article was suggested by Horselover. I agreed to the terms laid out by Horselover, and also expanded upon by Sun Dragon. I made edits to the article as per suggestions. You have now come in and ignored the ongoing process.
  • 2) I am not sure why you deleted the sourced information about national graduation rates provided by Horselover. It is very relevant to have that information when talking about NSC's graduation rate.
  • 3) There are many other issues with your edits, for example you write that "layoffs could hurt student services such as counseling and financial aid" is a "crystal ball claim". The reference is given right at the end of the sentence. The URL is http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/news/2008/jul/17/colleges-keeping-layoffs-secret/ and you will find precisely that comment about counseling and student services there.
There is already a process of editing this article initiated by Horselover, to which Sun Dragon and LuxNevada have contributed. Participation by Tikal323 (the one who objected) and 1wordster has been invited by Horselover. I request you to participate in the process under way. Please look at the 3 pages set up by Horselover specifically for arriving at a consensus.

LuxNevada (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt,

For your convenience, I am listing again the three versions that were created before you came along. These are created by Horselover to be worked on.

  • For Tikal323 and 1wordster: [[5]]
  • For LuxNevada [[6]]
  • For Horselover [[7]]

If you wish you can create a separate version for yourself, and then we can compare the versions to arrive at a consensus.

Thanks,

LuxNevada (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

1) This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I don't need anyone's permission to improve an article.
2) My edits to the graduation rate issue were primarily about how much space to give it. My version may have been on the short side, so if you prefer to include the comparison to California colleges, I might agree to that.
3) You're right. I missed that sentence in the source. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
My most recent edit to this article can be found here, and hopefully Horselover_Frost doesn't mind my using his userspace: [[8]]. Additionally I've made two changes suggested by LuxNevada, expanding the graduation rate to include the information I deleted (though more concisely), and restoring the "could hurt student services" I incorrectly identified as OR. It's still crystal ball, but it's the source's ball, not ours.
Diffs between the temp versions in userspace would be helpful; as some of my edits shouldn't be controversial (sorting out the "Other Information" unsection, etc.) I'd like to implement them quickly. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
While I understand your desire for speed, we are trying to reach consensus here. That may take some time. Here are some points:
  • The page you point to isn't working, so I can't see your edits.
  • As for graduation rates, this is very important information for readers, so I think we shouldn't make that section concise. Also you prefer to name the section "Graduation Rate", I think the heading "Low Graduation Rate" is appropriate as that is what a 16% rate is. If you wish, we can instead use the source's terminology, which labeled the graduation rate disappointing. This source is very RS, one of the two main newspapers in Las Vegas.
  • You can go ahead and sort out the "Other Information" section, that's okay with me.

Regards, LuxNevada (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Article being worked on

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Matt, I see that you restored the changes that you had made ignoring the "active discussion" template put by Sun Dragon. I think we will all get to where we want to faster if we reach a consensus before making major changes. LuxNevada (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

{{ActiveDiscuss}} says "read the discussion on the talk page." If the intended message was something different, I had no way of knowing. See {{Inuse}}, {{Underconstruction}}, {{Merging}}.
In any case, the article version the drafts started from is still in the article's history (here) as well as the individual drafts' history, so the diffs are intact. I did merge the changes from the drafts, but if I've made any errors or omissions, I'll be happy to help correct them. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Matt, thanks, LuxNevada (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about edit war

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

LuxNevada,

I'm confused as to why you find the edits I have made to the NSC webpage inappropriate. Basic information, such as majors available and tuition rates, is publicly available, non-controversial, and listed on all the other college/university websites I have visited. After your first comments I went through and noticed a few places my language was sloppy and made sure to take out anything that seemed to be biased (which I had initially thought of as simply factual). I have never deleted any of your content or attempted to censor negative information. Providing updates on tuition when the current page has information that is 2 years old seems to me to be an extremely non-controversial, neutral edit.

I would like to come to some agreement about this. I know edit warring is a major no-no and I think we're on the verge of that, and there's no reason. If you could please explain why information similar to that posted on many other wikipedia pages without any apparent concern is unacceptable here, I would appreciate it. Oklvnv (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are new to Wiki and do not understand how it works. Anyone can claim advertising as "basic information". Also see post below. And stop changing the order in which the information appears! LuxNevada (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
LuxNevada,
It's quite presumptuous to assume that having a new or not very active Wikipedia account means a person is new to Wiki or that they don't know how it works. Wikipedia is not the only wiki out there, and one can learn how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be structured and written simply by reading a lot of them.
You never answered the question Oklvnv raised. There is 2008 tuition information on the page, and you seem okay with that. Why on earth is providing the 2010 figures controversial or non-neutral? Wikipedia is better than a print encyclopedia because it is always has more up-to-date information. What is your rationale for keeping this page out-of-date? Furthermore, in what way can tuition figures ever be considered advertising or self-promoting?
You demand Oklvnv to stop changing the order the material appears. Why is that? All writers know that occasionally things are restructured, particularly in the beginning when the document is still small and taking shape. Maybe you have a good reason for this. If so, please share it.
I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia is intended to be collaborative, and even though you evidently feel that you own this page and that you are the only one providing legitimate content, it is unWiki-like to wholly refuse to listen to other people's input. I'd really encourage you to be more willing to work with people who clearly have useful information to share. --Caileagleisg (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
LuxNevada,
Just to be sure I understand your argument, is it your contention that anyone who has ever, is, or will in the future take a class at NSC is, automatically, banned from editing this page, including updating very basic information like tuition rates that are currently 2 years out of date? Given that there is already a section on student protests, I also do not see why adding a link to the Fox News website about NSC student efforts to fight budget cuts is out of line--it seems very appropriate for that section, since I make no claims about it being effective, good, or unique. I don't see what is less neutral about that news coverage than about articles you took from the Sun.

--Oklvnv (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC).

"Wikipedia is not the only wiki out there"... true, but don't carry over lessons from other wiki's to Wikipedia. I am quite okay with 2010 figures being added, just don't add "School of Nursing" etc. advertising like materials right at the top of the article. LuxNevada (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Self Promotion and Advertising

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

This page has a history of self-promotion and advertising. Here is an earlier post (posted 9 July 2008) that was deleted by an editor:

"This article has a problem of self-promotion/advertising that editors should be aware of. Advertising links and positive material have been added by three editors: EditContent, 68.96.96.213 and Ousmane3. Account EditContent seems to have created specifically to edit this page, it has no other contributions. Accounts 68.96.96.213 and Ousmane3 seem to edit only this page and add references to the work of xxx, for example this . Now xxx is a faculty of Nevada State College and only these accounts seem to consider his work worthy of being included in Wikipedia. The use of Wikipedia for self-promotion is not disallowed, but to the best of my knowledge it is not encouraged. It is better to let others cite your work. The same tendency is visible in this article in the removal of sourced material that some may consider critical, but provides useful information."

Wiki is pretty clear about self-promotion and advertising. It is for others to decide about your work or institution. This page has been repeatedly edited by editors associated with Nevada State College who try to give it a positive spin. They are oklvnv, mumsie28, robin80h, ousmane3, 1wordster, editcontent etc. And these editors seem to come to Wiki with the explicit purpose of editing this article. If you are from Nevada State College, then stay away from Wiki, take your advertising elsewhere!

LuxNevada (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Your version of the page, which you keep reverting anyone else's changes to, is the basis for this page. The fact that the page "has a history of self-promotion and advertising" (if this is indeed true) is irrelevant to any changes made recently, especially as you have managed to encourage numerous editors to stop working on the page in the past. Recent changes are clearly not being made by the same people who might have made the self-promotion and advertising transgressions of the past. Consequently, any new edits should be looked at individually and without bias against them based on irrelevant history. You can't just make a sweeping claim of self-promotion or advertising for an entire set of edits if you can't point to the actual bits that are self-promoting or advertising, and explain how they are either of those things. --Caileagleisg (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
"Recent changes are clearly not being made by the same people who might have made the self-promotion and advertising transgressions of the past." I am not so sure about that. Anyway, I welcome improvements to the article that are not advertising-like. LuxNevada (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
LuxNevada,

It appears we're not going to come to any type of consensus over what is appropriate and inappropriate to post. I have looked at a number of other college/university sites. Many of them even have sections on awards, faculty achievements, and so on. I think I am being very circumspect about what I add--simple descriptive material. Saying there is a nursing program is not big news. Listing the majors NSC has isn't "advertising" any more than saying where the campus is would be. That is the most basic type of information that can possibly be added.

Would you be willing to have a third-party mediator become involved to help us come up with some ground rules for editing the page? I feel like at this point you are trying to exercise total editorial control over what can be added, rather than allowing a collaborative editing process to occur. I have been careful never to delete anything you had on the page, other than updating broken links (with links to the exact same pages, but with newer web addresses).

I think it would be helpful to have a mediator help us come to a constructive agreement that will lead to a collaborative approach to editing that allows for a range of editors and avoids edit warring, accusations (such as that I might be a previous editor with a new username--I assure you I am not, but I also am not a "single-topic editor," as you previously labeled me; I'm simply new and thus haven't had time to post on very many topics yet). While you of course have the right to continue editing the site, I am unwilling to give up my right to contribute to it as well, following the guidelines set by the wikipedia community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oklvnv (talk • contribs) 01:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to include factual information about the School of Nursing, as long as it is encyclopedic rather than advertising. Also if you feel that there is advertising materials present on the pages of other schools, the proper thing to do is to remove that material rather than including such material here. LuxNevada (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
You did not respond to my central question: would you be willing to work with a 3rd-party mediator to help us come to an agreement about what counts as "advertising" material? That is the crux of the problem here: I believe you are defining as advertising-related information that most wikipedia editors do not. I would like some additional guidance, but my understanding is that mediation requires the agreement of both parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oklvnv (talk • contribs) 14:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Oklvnv, you really need to read up conflict of interest. Editor Mumsie28 edited this page on Nov 19, then there was a lull. Then starting Feb 9, there were a spate of edits by Robin80h, IP address 131.216.144.20 (resolves to Nevada State College), and you. So it is not a stretch to imagine that these editors are the same or acting in concert. One of these editors also writes "I am a member of the retention and accreditation committees". If you understand how Wiki works, it is not proper for you to be editing this article. Leave editing of this article to those who are not employed by NSC. There are lots of other articles on Wiki that need improving, direct your attention to those. LuxNevada (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I have indeed read up on the conflict of interest pages, as well as the policies on not "biting the newbies," being collaborative, assuming that people are editing in good faith until there is clear evidence to the contrary, not labeling a person a "single-topic editor" unnecessarily, and having a NPOV. I take it from your above statement that you are refusing mediation?
I also asked above if it is your position that anyone who has ever or will ever attend classes at NSC is barred from updating this page. You did not clarify whether having any connection whatsoever (being a current or former student, or having EVER worked at NSC, say, regardless of whether you are doing so now) disqualifies a person from being able to have any objective, non-advertising input on a page. Thus far I feel that I haven't quite gotten the clarification I'd like to get to. I grew up on a cattle ranch; is it therefore impossible for me to write about ranching without being biased? It seems that if we extend this logic, only people who have no prior information about a topic would be allowed, because if you had enough information to be interested in a topic, you're automatically inappropriate as an editor.

"I grew up on a cattle ranch; is it therefore impossible for me to write about ranching without being biased?" While it might be fun to come up with such straw man arguments, you can't be serious. Wiki policy is not set by me, and if Wiki policy says that those employed by a firm etc. should add only non-controversial edits, then that is what you will have to abide by. I will say once more, you really need to read up conflict of interest. You keep questioning me about mediation, but the question of mediation arises only after we have settled what is to be mediated. My question to you is, if you are the person who wrote "I am a member of the retention and accreditation committees" or are acting in concert with that person, do you realize what Wiki policy implies? This is the question that needs to be answered first. LuxNevada (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This page continues to suffer from self promotion and advertising with editors who seem to edit only this page. I am also reverting removal of sourced material. LuxNevada (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Restoring itemized edits and changing to address issues of editor who discarded several valid edits

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Several elements of this page are clearly slanted and need to be fixed, such as a header stating "Low enrollment" describing the fastest-growing college/university in the state. This header should simply say "Enrollment" with neither high nor low in front as those are subjective adjectives and the information -- ALL of which is sourced properly -- needed to be updated with more recent and relevant figures. Discarding more than a half-dozen edits all at once is careless and lazy, particularly since each was itemized. The editor's main argument was subsquently addressed (even though the source is a rival college paper) and I am looking forward to reaching an agreeable and fair representation of this page without unnecessary mediation, but would appreciate it if valid edits weren't frivolously discarded without discussion because of an apparent lingering desire to keep relevant changes from being made on a basic information page. AnothercupofJoe (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are quite POV. For example, a "fastest-growing" can simply be due to even lower enrollments to start with. Also are you associated in any manner with Nevada State College? If you are, then you should let those who are not associated to do the edits. Regards, LuxNevada (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Also you seem to have little idea how Wiki works. Calling the student newspaper of UNLV "A rival college publication" is WP:OR and worse. LuxNevada (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I have plenty of knowledge about Wikipedia, and no association with Nevada State College. Based on your years of disputing everything about this page, it's clear that you have some interest other than just wanting to update facts. But I also know that it is against Wikipedia rules to "out" other editors and I respect your right to work on creating a fair and balanced page.
I restored the silly argument over the UNLV Rebel Yell article (a publication run by college students) because it's not relevant (not to mention 11 years old). And the way it was worded originally was factually incorrect. The proposed site was not a waste dump at the time of the article. It was planned to be converted to one. But either way, that entire point is trivial (though a part of the history, so worth leaving in the lead.
I restored necessary changes that bring this article out of 2008 and into 2012, and everything is cited properly from credible news sources. The Review-Journal article called the school the fastest-growing in the state, and is properly sourced. That's not my opinion, or POV. It's a credible report and the article weight\s it against other schools for comparison. What is entirely opinion and POV are headers such as "low enrollments" (who's to say for a brand-new school those numbers are low?) etc. This page should just present facts. Its previous incarnation was filled with opinionated prose, headers, etc., and I'm not trying to glorify it nor delete sourced information about graduation-rate struggles, etc., just aiming to make it fact-based and more importantly, current. Thanks. AnothercupofJoe (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The edits being undone are unsourced stuff like "which prompted the Nevada Board of Regents in 2001 to select the college's present day site." Also this page has a history of being edited by those associated with the organization. Even the current "new" editors just have edits for this particular article. LuxNevada (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

LuxNevada, thanks for bringing the unsourced references to my attention. You'll see in my latest version that I do source the references, and I think you'll agree that the sources are sound. I believe the most recent version clarifies the fact that the college's current 509-acre site is not the site that posed environmental concerns. As for your concern that I'm associated with the college, I really don't know how to address that. What is important as we discuss this article is that we adhere in good faith to Wikipedia's five pillars and guidelines.

As such, I'm recommending the following framework for this article moving forward. This framework is largely informed by Wikipedia's college and university article guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE

The intent of these guidelines, as established by Wikipedia, is to apply to “all college and university articles.” Because Nevada State College is an institution of higher learning recognized by all relevant accrediting organizations, I have chosen to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines as they relate to article structure. According to Wikipedia’s guidelines, the “basic structure of a college or university article should follow the general format below. Sections may be expanded, customized, or moved depending on need and type of institution.” In addition, I have also followed Wikipedia’s recommendation to look at some example and feature articles of colleges and universities concerning structure.

Lead

  • Article summary

History

  • Noteworthy milestones
  • Major campus expansions
  • Notable student protests or reforms

Campus Over

  • all layout and size of campus
  • On-going campus planning activities
  • Sustainability initiatives

Organization and administration

  • Structure of the administration
  • Current leadership
  • Budget
  • Relationship with a board of trustees or regents
  • Student government
  • Endowment information
  • Academic divisions of the college / university
  • Membership in a state system

Academics

  • Accreditation
  • Tuition and Financial aid
  • Number of degree programs
  • Degrees awarded annually
  • Academic units

Student Life

  • Student government
  • Clubs
  • Student newspaper

In researching this entry, I have been and will continue to be careful to include reliable sources and to write with a neutral point of view. You’ll note that some of the sources I plan to cite (based on the proposed template above) are published by the college or the Nevada System of Higher Education. While I am sensitive to the reliability of self-published materials, I do recognize, as does Wikipedia, their importance in providing meaningful and relevant information. “Colleges and universities to publish a wide variety of important and authoritative information that should be included in any article. The Common Data Set, a fact book/almanac, President’s reports, course catalogs, and/or faculty handbooks are excellent and authoritative sources of information on the college or university and can commonly be found on the websites for the provost, registrar, or institutional research office.”

I'm interested to get your thoughts on the proposed framework above.--Henderson Local (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

LuxNevada, You'll see that I've made today some edits to the above framework. I've only just started with the history section. (I haven't even gotten through the 2001 news reports, but the history of the college is fascinating.) Per the framework, I plan on adding content to the Student Life section. At first glance, it looks like there's not a ton of material, but I hope to continue my research over the weekend. Once I get the framework in place, I think I'll have a better sense of how to edit the intro.--Henderson Local (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
LuxNevada, I don't understand your rationale and supporting evidence for removing my sourced material (approx. 30 sources). You write: "This page continues to suffer from self promotion and advertising with editors who seem to edit only this page. I am also reverting removal of sourced material." Please explain why you believe my sourced material relates to self promotion and advertising. You provide no justification or rationale for removing my edits. I would appreciate a detailed point-by-point explanation to help me understand how recent edits concerning the campus site, the early history of NSC, the physical campus and buildings, the current administrative leadership, accreditation, etc. are advertising.Henderson Local (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Nevada State College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Nevada State College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nevada State College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nevada State College. 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:

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) 05:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nevada_State_University/Archive_1&oldid=1180988524"