Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uploadvirus (talk | contribs) at 10:55, 25 April 2011 (→Response to your post on ANI: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

so is this.

Reverted edits

Hi BelloWello,

I noticed you reverted my edits to Southern Adventist University and cited Conflict of Interest. I was wondering if we could discuss which changes you felt displayed that so I can make appropriate adjustments. I added a bunch of information, but I don't think any of it wasn't factual.

Regarding other omissions:

• student missionary death and "gun point" items happened off campus. Unless these incidents happened on campus, I don't find it relevant to the entry. That would lead to us reporting alumni deaths, car accidents, suicides, etc. I didn't remove the death of the student on campus due to the fire because I feel its more relevant to the university since it occurred on campus.
• The "masturbation controversy" section seems sensationalist in its titling at the very least. I'm not sure why one controversy back in the 80s merited singling out.
• The ideology section just seems to be focused on one person's opinion. There have been articles claiming Southern has become too liberal. Why does this one merit inclusion in your opinion?
• I'll be honest; your recent edits give the impression of vandalism. Most of your edits seem to be to add negative commentary. Using Spectrum, a commentary blog, as a source seems to provide a lot of the negative wording. There is nothing included from the Review, ANN, or any other sources that are more news/announcement.

I would like to resolve this rather than get into an edit duel. I spent a bunch of time going through an old book on Southern and visiting their website to add some of that information. I don't want to see it go to waste. --Quixar (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have replied to you on the article's talk page. BelloWello (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: IP edit you reverted

In reply to User_talk:Xionbox#IP_edit_you_reverted Dear BelloWello,

I'll be honest and say that I only very quickly decided to revert your edit. The reason I did that was because I saw you added the standard image template beside the the title "Accreditation" and removed two sources. Removing the information you planned on removing turns our to be a valid edit and I encourage you to remove once more. I really recommend you to explains all edits in the edit summary. That shines light for recent changes patrollers who check, usually only very quickly, for reasons as to why certain edits were maid.

Don't hesitate to contact me again if you have any questions, remarks or for any other reason!

Xionbox 07:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

University of the Pacific

This page should not have been moved from University of the Pacific. Being a dab page does not mean the article title has to include '(disambiguation)'. That only is needed if there is a primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Misplaced Pages. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Misplaced Pages contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Misplaced Pages user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Heather J. Knight

Thank you for asking my opinion. I made a few comments about PUC on my talk page, and some recommendations about Dr. Knight's article on the draft article's talk page. I hope my comments prove useful. Cullen328 (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to your post on ANI

(copied and pasted here so you see it)

Crazy accusations? LOL! Well, BelloWello, perhaps you should try searching the Archives of complaints here for Kwamikagami and see if you don't come across about THIRTY similar problems. THEN come back and decide if its "crazy", or if a "good faith" assumption is warranted. Q.E.D.!

(added here)

Look, B.W., I'm not interested in taking this problem any further, but I don't see how you can accuse me of "bad faith" or "being crazy" or "having a problem" if you are familiar with this guys history. No offense to you, just take a look at the Archives at all the problems he's caused.

Regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)