Hi FVK, this is in response to your note on my talk page. This sentence at the
Southern Adventist University page is under discussion.
Southern has a strong record of acceptances into medical, dental, and law schools and its symphony orchestra, concert band, choral groups, and gymnastics team tour internationally.
Question: Aren't there assessment sites that report on such record of acceptance? On the high school level, the
Fraser Institute reported on schools that had a high rate of students going on to university.
Idea. It may be useful to find news items about SAU's international touring groups.
I've been trying to find them, but haven't met with the greatest success. I will keep looking though. I still don't see why TICUA is an unreliable source.--
Fountainviewkid (
talk)
04:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I don't understand those type of sources very much. They probably rely on information provided by the school. The research necessary to verify each schools information would take lots more effort and time. I doubt that TICUA takes such time to independently verify the information submitted by the school. If TICUA describes their process of gathering information, that would be helpful.
DonaldRichardSands (
talk)
05:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
It is good to encourage experienced editors to provide critical advice on the WP article. In the end, the article will be stronger for their input. Each editor becomes an acquaintance. They become part of the SAU team of editors.
DonaldRichardSands (
talk)
05:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Donald what you fail to realize is this was initially brought to the talk page by a new IP which COULD very easily be a sock of a banned user. I do not know for sure, but the POSSIBILITY is certainly there. We should be careful at least for that reason if not for the fact that actions were taken BEFORE consensus was obtained. Critical editors need to wait for consensus before making such edits (unless there is some egregious breach of policy). Otherwise a bad precedent is set, one against the principles of Wikipedia.--
Fountainviewkid (
talk)
05:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
It is possible that the initial edit was a sock of a banned user. If the revert has been done by an unregistered IP, then to revert back can be justified IMO. But, now that we have experienced registered editors weighing in, the best way forward is to discuss and examine. Remember, the success of the SAU WP page does not depend on any one disputed sentence, but the overall article. Every critic and their concern helps the page strengthen. For example, two editors have now challenged the source. It is to the WP page's advantage to have them involved. A critic brings strength to the article, not weakness.
DonaldRichardSands (
talk)
08:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Hi Atama, the link you provided to show membership lists the board members. SAU doesn't have a rep on the board, according to the link you provided. It is a member institution, though. See
HEREDonaldRichardSands (
talk)
09:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, it's true that SAU does not have a rep on the board. But the fact is that the schools are directly involved in the organization, to the extent that half of the board is composed of representatives from member schools. So the organization is not a neutral third party. It would be like using a city's
chamber of commerce as a reference for a local business. The PDF is a
self-published source, and such sources cannot be "unduly self-serving". As to the accuracy of the information, "Southern has a strong record of acceptances into medical, dental, and law schools", that's a self-promotional claim that really should be backed up by a reliable source. What constitutes a "strong" record? Who determines that? -- Atama頭09:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I understand what both of you are saying, which is why I suggested a modification. For example, making only a mention about the music and gymnastics programs and noting that a specific organization has said something about SAU's record into various schools. I still believe it would be possible to use the source as it doesn't have to be "unduly self-serving". I see a way for it to be a valuable piece of information just with more context and a removal of questionable wording.--
Fountainviewkid (
talk)
14:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
That is a good find Donald. I think I might actually look into it. Thanks for being more helpful than others. I appreciate your sense of fairness and balance.--
Fountainviewkid (
talk)
17:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
I agree that the second part of the quote is somewhat factual, and shouldn't be as problematic. Here's a suggestion, rather than sourcing that PDF, why not use
this page? It has the exact same text and you're no longer sourcing a 40+ page advertisement. It still suffers the same SPS issues, but at least it's better than that PDF. Also, I ran across
this page, which is still an SPS (SAU provides the info you see there) but there's a lot of info to look at. -- Atama頭18:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
It actually never was sourced to the PDF. I only said you that link because I thought it would show that it's actually in print rather than just some information posted online. I like your link there, and perhaps I can use it. Unfortunately I don't think those who have now entered the Southern Talk page would agree. They haven't been willing in the slightest bit to compromise or try to come to a consensus. It's not making this easy.--
Fountainviewkid (
talk)
18:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Future
After enough losses sometimes it's time to move on. I must be gone and with it my wiki life. Twas a fascinating endeavor while it lasted, but alas all good things must come to an end (this side of Heaven). Farewell.--
Fountainviewkid (
talk)
06:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)reply
FVK, I haven't had much interaction with you, but from what I have observed, you have shown a lot of courage and integrity in your time here.
Drrll (
talk)
18:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Good-bye, Fountainviewkid! I'm going to miss working with you. As much as Wikipedia needs conservative editors like you, your decision is the correct one: there are many other ways to spend your time that are more productive and fulfilling than editing Wikipedia. It is addicting, though, so I wish you a relatively painless withdrawal. If there's a lesson to be learned here, it's that people (admins are people too) judge by appearances instead of looking deeper to discover what really happened. Keep the faith, and, if you change your mind, you can always come back in a month! Vaya con Dios! --
Kenatipospeak!03:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)reply
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in
dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are
active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to
this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
I'm so sorry to hear that you have already left us. You have been a valued and trusted contributor of the project. I hope you reconsider your retirement and return to Wikipedia once more. Best wishes,
Lord Sjones23 (
talk -
contributions)
05:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Article on Creationist
Kid,
I need your help on this article
/info/en/?search=Walter_Veith As it needs work to keep it from being deleted from Wikipedia. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
Simbagraphix (
talk)