Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Hey, instead of voting "meh", could you put in agree or disagree. There might be individual editors who will think you're supporting some imaginary consensus. Again.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] rootology (T) 18:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit if inclined.[2] Thanks, Amerique^dialectics 16:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've commented on its talk page. - jc37 21:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, while I oppose the methodology of the recall proposal currently being considered, that in no way reflects my opinion of you. I have really not looked through your other contributions, but I have no reason to believe they are not wonderful. In short, it is not personal. Chillum 16:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I don't take anything on this site personally. I appreciate your input, though. Amerique^dialectics 20:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:UCR logo.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why did you add that tag on my page you cant until you prove it I will undo it is vandalism and who's House?... If this continues I will contact a admin. MountCan (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already contacted an admin. and asked him to do me a User cheak to stop you from saying I'm a sock puppet, because I'm not! MountCan (talk) 23:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not House, do me a user cheak to prove it, and so you can leave me alone! I have contacted 2 admins. already MountCan (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I block for an error that I did, I'm canadian and wasent expecting this so can I edit or whats going on? MountCan (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not right now, but I'm giving a California barnstar to the first person who does! Amerique^dialectics 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: All done. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the California Star. Didn't know that one existed. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Blocked. You might want to ask Alison to run a checkuser on the latest socks and see if an IP block can be done. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Unfortunate that the range is so busy. Oh well, my block button is very easy to use. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 mistake and this happens? Oh and can I create a new account and start all over, fresh? MountCan (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what you've been doing. And you'll probably make the same mistakes through another account and get blocked again. So it goes. See you again real soon I'm sure. Amerique^dialectics 00:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I wont make the same mistake I will edit, but well. But you guys were wrong I am not House. MountCan (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I heard about your proposal and I have to say that I think strengthening administrator recall is a good idea. This way, we won't have any administrators who are:

• Eccentric
• Ugly
• Strongly religious
• Strongly critical of religion
• Mentally ill
• Private individuals, who keep to themselves
• Opposed to pseudoscience
• Politically aware
• Interesting
• Critical of Wikipedia
• Honest
• Intelligent
• Human, capable of making mistakes
• Competent
• Capable of doing their jobs
• Named Jimmy Wales

In other words, in a purely democratic Wikipedian bureaucracy, high-level administrators would start to resemble politicians, as they already somewhat do. It is good for leadership to be arbitrarily decided by the fickle whims of the anti-intellectual mob, because with the resulting shortage of administrators and the tying of their hands, I would finally have the freedom to IAR. In any case, if Jimmy Wales doesn't respond to this suggestion, I suppose the community will have to decide by consensus on what his opinion ought to be.

In all honesty, it is the virtues of editors which matter. The methods by which those editors come together is arbitrary. There is a trade-off in admin recall between the ability for the community to make stupid decisions and the ability for individuals to make stupid decisions. There is no reason to have more faith in one than the other. So, lack of admin recall is corrupt elitism, the presence of admin recall is whimsical populism. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the nail right on the head! Those admins with pointy senses of humor should be the first to find out if the community still appreciates their virtues, following a stand-up performance at a well-attended RFC! Community recall would be like the Gong Show, or even like the early stages of American Idol, but with the audience as judges. Admins are made by the mob, why not let them be unmade by the same mob? You have truly seen the zen majesty of what I am proposing, in that it provides a larger symmetry to balance the existing thing. Amerique^dialectics 17:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I know reality shows are very popular right now, I don't think the gong show style is the best way to manage ourselves. If our goal was to create an entertaining show then yes, but we are here to write an encyclopedia. Chillum 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was only joking around. I'm tempted to file an RFA on myself just so that this process could be used against me so i don't seem like an instigator before i put the proposal back in project space. I don't think it would pass, though. (I'm already at least half of the things under Zenwhat's hit list, above.) Amerique^dialectics 18:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't joking, I meant it. I do appreciate the effort you have taken into reform, I don't think it is the right direction but discussing it with the community is the best way to find out. I disagree with the idea, but I appreciate that you got people thinking. Chillum 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, don't worry about it. The community's decision on this will not be a matter of either of us agreeing with each other. Your comments help refine the idea, before it has a chance to get "gonged out" by the community, so I appreciate your participation at these early stages. Amerique^dialectics 18:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by the way, you may find this interesting: User:Chillum/Admin reform history. It is a collection of prior proposals regarding admin recall. It may be useful in determining what the community has already rejected and what they have accepted. It has not been updated since Nov. 2007 however so it does not contain any of the recent proposals. Chillum 20:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:House1090. He's back again with a different IP, 71.110.223.8 (talk · contribs). CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO, but you have participated in discussion at either Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3 or Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as an active member. Also, if you are a member, be advised that the project is now atrying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This month you have indicated new or continuing interest in WP:CHICAGO as either an active or semi-active member. The response to the project membership survey was strong enough that we should attempt to organize it in a more fully functional way. Please sign up at Wikipedia:CHICAGO/leadership if you would be willing to serve as a leader of the project from September 1, 2008 to February 28, 2009. The various leadership responsibilities are listed there. The roles will be somewhat similar to the roles of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. We are a less mature and developed project than WP:MILHIST however, so our division of roles will be slightly different. Please respond by the 23rd.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Dabackgammonator (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great so far, almost as good as UCR, ha ha. I'd like to help, however I don't have a lot of time to devote to WP right now. I'll try to help as I find the time. Amerique^dialectics 04:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love UCR's article and UCR itself. Thank you for even considering... long live higher education in Southern California!!!--Dabackgammonator (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Amerique. Your view on unblocking House1090 might be useful in this thread. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me a new chance and I'm sorry, I wont let you and wikipedia down. I want to work with you on makining San Bernardino, Inland Empire a good article. House1090 (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. just stay cool and don't take it too seriously. Amerique^dialectics 04:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever thought of becoming an administrator? Jehochman ^Talk 02:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

funny you should ask. like i haven't caused enough drama on this site, already. i'm sort of minimally active these days, but may have occasion to use the buttons. Amerique^dialectics 04:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have 2300+ mainspace contributions and about 4600 total. Usually 5,000 - 7,000 is the best amount of experience at which to try RFA. I recommend you think about it, and be sure you can show regular activity for a few months and think about how you'd answer the standard questions. If you want to proceed, let me know. Jehochman ^Talk 04:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, that may be awhile. thanks for inquiring, though. Amerique^dialectics 04:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

I was wondering why most of the UC articles quote the 2006 UCOP figures when we have access to the 2007 annual endowment report. These figures include the earmarked portion from the UC endowment fund and the individual campus foundation totals. If you add these figures together, you will find that the values aren't that far from the projected USNWR figures. Additionally, if you take into account the fact that the USNWR figures include the subsidary graduate department foundation totals and account for projected growth, the 2008 USNWR figures become much more realistic. I find it highly unlikely that a reputable news source would simply "fudge" these types of numbers. Are you absolutely sure that the 2008 USNWR figures are wrong? — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 08:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you consider the fact that the UCLA endowment fund increased from $1.912 billion in 2006, to $2.299 billion in 2007, according to the 2007 UC financial report, and then apply this same percent increase (~20%) to the 2007 figure, you have a value that is approximately $2.762 billion dollars --which is an approximation of the 2008 value. I'm not saying that we should use this "projected" figure, but what I want to point out is that this simple approximation isn't that far off from the value that USNWR recorded in 2008 ($2.906 billion). Once again, I have to question your reasons for rejecting the 2008 USNWR values. — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 08:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are using the figures for the individual campuses from the 2007 NACUBO Endowment Study, as per here Talk:University_of_California,_San_Francisco#Endowment_figure, and also List_of_U.S._colleges_and_universities_by_endowment. Finance isn't my field, but the UC Regents and individual campus Foundation figures are accounted for in total by the UC treasurer in table one of the 2007 AER, and they are still nowhere near the US News totals, or "projections," for 2008. I don't know where you are getting the information that USNWR includes individual department foundation totals. i have never heard of this, and i don't see how, if so, this could be easily confirmed. Myself and several others on this site, who are more knowledgeable than me, would rather use the real values for individual campuses as reported to NACUBO. Amerique^dialectics 16:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing one of my main points. Ignoring the graduate school amounts (that point is superfluous), what I am trying to say is this: I have seen you, and other editors, argue that the USNWR figures are grossly inaccurate. What lead you to this conclusion? My point, in the paragraph above, was that the 2008 figures are exactly what I would predict, given the percent increase from the year before and the percent increases that are often observed by other universities (15%-30% annually). What lead you to reject these values? — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 19:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US News in some cases quadruples the endowment figures for some universities. I don't see how you could think that even a 30% annual gain could account for a 855,605,000 million endowment from 189,401,000 million a year ago, just in the case of Irvine. The combined Regents and Foundation figures for UCLA and Berkeley in 2007 seem closer to the 2008 ballpark US News was predicting in 2007, but they are still off, which is to say, inaccurate, if we take the 2007 NACUBO report at face value. How is the proposition that US News is accurate a reasonable conclusion, given the conflicting evidence? Amerique^dialectics 21:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the USnews never reported $855 million for 2007. Where did you get that number? Secondly, if you consider a discrepancy between the USnews and NACUBO, sufficient grounds to toss out the USnews values, then, on the same grounds, you must also toss out the UC report since it also has a discrpency with the NACUBO figures. My point here is that all three of these sources have slightly different inclusion and exclusion criteria and, as a result, list slightly different values. However, for the most part, they reflect very similar amounts. I never argued that the USNWR is 100% accurate (and I doubt they, themselves would argue the same), but what I am arguing is that it is a credible source and should not simply be rejected as inherintly inaccurate and wrong. Like I mentioned earlier, they are a large, reputible news source, and I highly doubt that they could get away with simply mucking numbers. If you can show me conclusive evidence that show otherwise, I will be open to change my opinion. — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

855 million was the endowment USNews reported for Irvine on their site last year. They seem to have removed endowment information from their site this year, which is a good thing for them, but here is a record of someone else noticing the discrepancy: Talk:University_of_California,_Irvine/Archive_2#Endowment_again. US News is not "slightly different," but "way off," but if a discrepancy of 666,204 million seems only "slightly different" to you, your opinion is worthless to me. Amerique^dialectics 22:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the reasons for the differences between NACUBO and the UC AER are explained in the respective documents. US News provides no means of accounting for what seem to me grossly inflated figures. Amerique^dialectics 22:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to maintain a civil tone. The figure you are referring to is the 2008 value (though it was reported in 2007). The USnews never claimed that this value represented the 2007 aggregate worth of the UCI endowment fund. You keep comparing the 2007 NACUBO value with the 2008 USNWR value, and then siting a discrepancy that is "way off." My point, again, is that you keep trying to discredit the USNWR endowment values in their entirity, and keep siting an isolated difference when there actually isn't one. Even if, for the sake of argument, you show this same discrepancy exists between the 2008 NACUBO values (these will be published in 2009) and the $855 million figure, that doesn't mean that you should throw out all of the USNWR information. Every news source makes mistakes. And one mistake doesn't warrent complete dicreditation. But as I mentioned, I don't even see a clear-cut mistake. — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 22:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to worry. US News is in no danger of being thrown out of Wikipedia on my behalf. I even fought to allow their idiotic rankings to be used as sources in article leads: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Universities/Archive_7#Rankings_in_lead. Not to go on about this, but i only focused on clearing US News as a source for UC endowment info on WP because that was where they seemed the most loopy. Amerique^dialectics 23:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for the reason why you think it is "loopy." I'm still searching for a mistake. But I'm done with this discussion. — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 23:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of WP:OR. How does that apply here? I'm not sure what you mean by "collate discrepancies." I'm not even asking for a reconciliation of discrepancies. And, by the way, your tone is border-line uncivil. Please, let's work together to resolve this issue. — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 00:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to begin with, my tone is not "border-line civil," but is completely, purposefully and pointedly incivil. For that I apologize, but you seem to have difficulty recognizing reality. Likewise, a difference of 666,204 million between two amounts published in the same year for the same endowment by different agencies does not mean the amounts are "very similar," it quite comfortably means that one is wrong. The discrepancies between USNews and the UC endowment info published in 2007 varies, but the NACUBO figures consistently seem much closer to the UC's, and they collectively present a qualified basis for disregarding US News as a source for this info. Amerique^dialectics 05:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is the clearest reply you have given thus far. Thank you. What I was saying, however, is that the 2007 USNWR value that you keep referring to is not a value that should be compared with the 2007 values from the UC AER or NACUBO. Yes, this USNWR value was published in 2007, but it is meant to be a 2008 projection. The USNWR always publishes their results in the previous year (e.g. the 2008 results where published in 2007 and, similarly, the 2009 results were published this year). That is what I have repeatedly tried to communicate to you. You keep comparing values published in the same year (2007) that are meant to describe the endowment value at different points in time (2007 & 2008). But, as you mentioned, this is getting old. — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 07:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]