Talk:St. John's University (New York City)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Edit warring

To those who have been engaged in the edit war here every last time it becomes unprotected: It has just come to an end. Period. Anyone reverting more than once (whether they or someone else reverted the same thing the first time) may be blocked without further warning, and it will only be 24 hours the first time, and get longer very rapidly. Those who cannot edit constructively will find themselves not editing at all. We have this talk page, and plenty of other means of dispute resolution, available. Use those, not repeated reverts. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I had a hard enough time just finding any constructive edits within the History, because of all the pointless reversions users keep on making. Is the order really that important? Can't you just agree on some kind of compromise, before undoing any other edits? I would strongly recommend for everyone to stop edit warring, and to communicate their concerns here on the Talk Page. It won't help the article, or the project itself, to have this page semi-protected again. Plus, most will support the disciplinary action explained by Seraphimblade above. Thus, you are urged to not make any substantial reversions within this article, until some kind of consensus is reached. ~ Homologeo (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

An editor - 71.240.28.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has recently performed another blind reversion. As a result, this individual's conduct has been reported to ANI. Disciplinary action may follow. Please do not follow in this user's footsteps, and first seek consensus here on the Talk Page. Collaboration in editing is a vital part of how the Wikipedia community functions, and blatant disregard of the project's best interests is not looked upon lightly. ~ Homologeo (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Most users are attempting to constructively edit this page. However, this has been met with opposition from one person using two IP addresses (150.210.226.2). The edit that lists "tuition, scandels, etc" at the beginning of the article was long ago agreed to be a bias and inappropriate format. The same information provided in that edit was incorporated in to the most updated version which appropriately lists (history, academics, etc) first, but lists scandels, rankings, tuition toward the middle of the article. Please help us resolve this issue. We cannot continue to revert for vandalism in order to keep a rogue editor from changing the agreed upon version. Further, the edits made (that list tuition, scandels, etc) at the top, are removing contructive edits made by several users that have nothing to do with their rationale for changing the article. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. We have attempted to discuss these changes multiple times, but the editor will not engage in a discussion. The agreed version properly lists (history, academics, etc) first, and items that do not "define" the school (as required by Wiki standards) to the middle or end of the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.40.192.194 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

there is no agreed version nor has an agreement been made. discussions have been made on this users page [1] as well as his main page [2] 150.210.176.218 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the observation that it is inappropriate to blindly undo edits that have nothing to do with the supposed "problem" being corrected. Editors need to be selective when reverting changes made by others, and justification needs to be always be provided for reversion. Please do not remove constructive work of others, especially when it has nothing to do with the editing conflict that you are involved in. ~ Homologeo (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Standard Wikipedia articles on colleges & universites do not list scandels, rankings, and tuition at the top of the article. Per prior discussions, these items may be appropriate for the article, but should be place in a the appropriate section of the article, and NOT at the top. See May/June/July discussion section. Please use this section of the discussion page to debate the issue before making edits. The slanderous article that often reverted too, orders its sections: "Rankings", "Recent News", "Scandels", and includes primarily negative information about the university. Under the "Neutral Version" these subjects are still included in the article, but are listed toward the middle to end, where such information belongs. Items such as history, academics, programs, etc., should be listed toward the top of the article, as is the case with most Wikipedia articles concerning universities. Please allow the "Neutral Version" (history, academics, etc toward top) to be the building block for the St. John's article. The back and forth edits have become ridiculous. The "Neutral Version" gives fair acknowledgement of scandels, rankings, etc, but in a more appropriate section, and without slanderous intent. What can we do to encourage you not to revert back to the other version and work with this article as the template for edits? I would really like to cooperate with you on this issue. - TiconderogaCCB --208.40.192.194 (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This position seems to make sense. What is the response of the opposing party on this issue? ~ Homologeo (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no standard article on wikipedia. There also is no agreed upon neutral version. This same user wouldn't even agree to a scandals section until it was shown above that other schools had it as well. The alleged neutral version deletes many of the scandals and rankings as well. 150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is the case, how about working towards a compromise. What does each of the parties want to happen to the structure and content of the article? I'm sure some sort of appropriate middle ground can be found. ~ Homologeo (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to relevant information, including scandels and rankings, as long as they are valid and objective. However, I believe such items should be listed toward the middle part of the article, and not put at the very top. Scandels, rankings and tuition issues do not define a university. History, academics, location, etc, are more appropriate for establishing what the university is, and thus should be listed at the top. In an article about Germany, would you describe National Socialism before giving information on Germany' history, location, language, etc? Of course not. In an article about MLK, would you first describe his plagiarized dissertation before mentioning that he is the most influential civil rights leader in history? No. Just the same, listing negative, fleeting, and subjective attributes of a university before discussing the essential elements that make up the university, is just absurd. I have no issue with the other author including scandels, tuition objections, and rankings, as long as they are in the proper place in the article, and that he doesn't "undo" everytime someone makes an edit to his grammar, or adds relevant information to the section. This is a prime case of a frustrated individual, angry at the university, doing his best to portray it in the most negative light, and the quality of Wikipedia's articles is suffering as a consequence. - TiconderogaCCB --71.240.101.148 (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, this perspective seems to be very legitimate and reasonable. Let's wait a little longer for a response from the other side. ~ Homologeo (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ticonderoga the spelling first of all is Scandal. Secondly rankings are included in various university articles in the initial 3 paragraphs. i.e.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_University#Programs (catholic school in new york city) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUNY_Baruch (new york city school) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Notre_Dame (catholic school)

tuition is far more important than the breade and life program Uconnstud (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The current version contains scandals, rankings, and tuition. Tuition is only relevant to individuals who attend the university, whereas the bread & life program is a significant non-profit serving a vast number of the underprivilaged in NYC. I think they would agree that it is more important than tuition. However, if you think tuition should be higher, lets work on a version that we can agree on. I don't mind moving it up, but some of you want to only include the section that compares old rates to new rates, without mentioning that that trend is parallel to all private universities. --71.253.38.28 (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Homologeo, if no adequate response is given, can you please suggest to editors to put the other version of the article up while the protection is in place? The current version is blatantly bias, not to mention, it is horribly constructed, contains many grammatical errors, and does not contain constructive edits contributed by several members. Thanks. - TicconderogaCCB --71.253.38.28 (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I thought it was fully protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TiconderogaCCB (talk • contribs) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's only semi-protected. However, this does not mean that consensus-seeking should be ignored. Both registered users and anons are urged to discuss changes related to the recent edit war on the Talk Page before implementing them within the article. This is why I think it's important to hear what the other side has to say in regards to the viewpoints advanced above about the structure of the article. ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Added scandal section to more objective version of the article. I hope this version can be universally accepted, and request input from other users and the "other side". I reverted to this version because it contains the most recent edits that were lost in the other version particularly, in "Academics", "Bread to Life", and "Famous Alumni". —Preceding unsigned comment added by TiconderogaCCB (talk • contribs) 01:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

you didn't add scandals you changed a lot of what it included. Basically you're censoring information.. AGAIN! Uconnstud (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about UConnStudd? This version did not have a scandal section, and Homologeo and I edited it in last night and worked to make it better organized. I'm surprised you do not find this section acceptable.--TiconderogaCCB (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This section includes all the controversial events that were listed on the other version. There were only minor alterations to grammar, and some names were removed, as they were either victims (which shouldn't be listed) or because listing them became so jumbled that the point was lost. If there is something you think should be added, then do so. --71.253.38.28 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, if I was wanting to censor information, I would have made must more drastic alterations. When you edit, you should consider what you are trying to accomplish by the edit. This is an article about St. John's University. It should include relevant and important facts concerning the university. You seem to edit with the prime intent of creating the most negative perception possible by wording things in the most negative way, often not including all the relevant facts. However, I am attempting to compromise by not deleting items that would normally not be maintained on an ENCYCLOPEDIA article about a university. I hope we can work to build on this article in a way that can satisfy everyone, but that will require everyone to be openminded, including the both of us. --71.253.38.28 (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

so why is it ok for the duke lacrosse team incident to have the names listed but not the st john's lacrosse incident. individuals were actually convicted in the st john's lacrosse incident. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal Uconnstud (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add the names, I'm on board. It just looked really jumbled. I don't think that most people will care what the names are, they're more interested in what the event was. But I am adamat about leaving victims' names out of the article.--TiconderogaCCB (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal Uconnstud (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, your bias is inherent in your user name. Does it suprise anyone that a user named UConn-Stud wants to portray St. John's negatively? What if we were doing the same to the article on the University of Connecticut? --71.253.38.28 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

my username isn't the issue. that's irrelevant. Uconnstud (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it mildly relevant that you have an affinity for a rival school of SJU, and are trying to edit the page of SJU to reflect negatively on the university.--TiconderogaCCB (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

that's a joke . U Conn is a state school, while st john's is a private school. Two different types of institutions. Also in the tuition section we should note that many top tier schools have eliminated tuition for those who make under 100,000. [3] Uconnstud (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you cannot be serious. One, I'm not sure what your trying to say by pointing out that SJU is private vs. public. And two, outside of two Ivy League institutions, you would be hard pressed to find a school that had zero tuition for students with incomes below 100,000. However, you would find many schools, like St. John's, that offer extensive financial aid packages that give enough grants and scholarships to low income students to cover their entire tuition cost. St. John's has such a diverse student population, not only ethnically, but economically, specifically because it makes its education affordable to anyone who wants to attend the university. When I went to SJU for example, I had a total family income of $40,000, and St. Johnn's covered my entire tuition, books, fees, and partial living allowance. Again, I cannot understand why you are so ANTI-St. John's...what the hell happened to make you so sour? In reality, out-of-state students at UConn pay $24,000 to St. John's $26,000, yet you're not littering UConn's page with such nonsense, and their average financial aid package is minor compared to SJU. I'm not trying to get into a UConn vs. SJU match, but I am trying to point out that your bias is unfounded, and many of the issues you think are unique to SJU are in fact universal. I would love for us to be able to edit this article civilly, but it will require that we both be open and willing to compromise. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK how about Cooper Union free tuition there for everyone. So you went to St. John's and apparently law school afterwards looking at your contribution history. St. John's paid your tuition, were you an ATHLETE? The vast majority of St. Jonh's students are from New York City or Long Island. Doing that kind of comparision you would use the state tuition to speak about U Conn. Again i'm asking you to stop removing other things that were in the ranking section such as

"least happy students" [4] You simply didn't just go to a "neutral version" you censored information. Uconnstud (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not from NY or the Northeast, however, its appropriate to use out-of-state numbers to refer to UConn because it reflects the true cost of the education. Why do you think you pay "in-state tuition"? Because its subsidized by state tax dollars so that your rates are lower, not because the university is doing you a favor. Cooper Union is only one example. If you want to include the comment above in the article on tuition, it should be a fact that a majority (or even a strong minority) of universities charge $0 for students with income below $100,000. That is simply not the case. --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, here is the quote from Cooper Union, "It is one of the few American institutions of higher learning to offer a full-tuition scholarship to all admitted students." Notice "FEW...INSTITUTIONS", now compare that to what you wanted to input, "many top tier schools have eliminated tuition for those who make under 100,000." Quite a bit different. --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

new article created 1990 St John's Lacrosse Team Rape Case Uconnstud (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Leaset Happy Students" was removed because it was taken out of context. The ranking was not for how happy students were with the university, but a question about their overall mental health. As such, it is not relevant to this article. Further, St. John's is not on the list as of 2008. Since it was anecdotal, and not substantive, it was better to remove it. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Should i quote you the article that says a ranking of least happy students? well here you go " No. 7 on the list of schools with the Least Happy Students. " [5] . so were you an athelete or were on on the band (which gives scholarships)? or was it an academic scholarship? or simply a ton of loans and grants? Uconnstud (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Torch article did not correctly quote the ranking. Go to Princeton Review and read the context. Here is the link to the 2008 "Least Happy Students" Ranking. [6]. You will notice that the rankings are in "Quality of Life" and have to do with mental health happiness, not the students' feelings about the university. -- To answer your question, I recieved a small academic scholarship, but the majority of my aid was need-based grants from the University, not the government. I was neither in band, nor athletics. Can you give me any good reason why you are doing this? --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

the reference clearly states least happy students. that is what you won't even put in, but you'll place in other rankings for the school? a bit biased don't you think? secondly congrats on the scholarship, but tuition has only increased since you've been a student to the point where most financial aid would not cover tuition costs Uconnstud (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, it should not be included because it is misleading. The ranking refers to quality of life not satisfaction with the university, and its purely anecdotal. For example, if there was a ranking in which Connecticut ranked 1st that said "Poorest Citizens", then explained that it was refering to Poorest Understanding of Kung Fu, if I were simply to put the ranking "Poorest Citizens", Connecticut, 1st, the impression would be that it the ranking was refering to monetary issues. This is analogous with the current situation. Since the ranking is ambigous and anecdotal it is best to omit it all together. - Secondly. I do not know how old you think I am, but I graduated from St. John's in the past four years, and have had family members apply as a result of my postitive experience, so I have a more familiar knowledge of the financial aid at SJU than you think. ---TiconderogaCCB (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet and Edit War List

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/TiconderogaCCB

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=prev&oldid=193167229 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/208.40.192.194 used by TiconderogaCCB Uconnstud (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I logged in and signed most of these after the fact. It is no secret that I am bad about logging in, but I have always made it evident who I am. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We should note this in the article

In 2002, St. John's University stated that it would eliminate 6 athletic programs (of which 5 were mens teams and one womens team) in order to comply with Title IX gender equality rules. It than added a mens lacrosse team. [30] which had been closed since the rape incident

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2002-12-13-stjohns_x.htm

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-70360377.html Uconnstud (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In 1997, A St. John's University professor was attacked and left for dead in her car at a St. John's University Parking lot. [7]

In March 2001, Two St. John's University students were shot on a campus parking lot by another man. One man Cory Prince, a St. John's University football player, was left paralyzed by the attack. [8]

"In November 2003, Willie Shaw, a senior guard, and former star Marcus Hatten—in what can only be called a serious lapse of race-profile-defusing street smarts—were busted for smoking pot as they sat in a white Caddy with Maryland plates outside the St. John’s off-campus players’ residence. Three weeks later, Mike Jarvis, the Storm coach who had led the team to twenty-win seasons in four of five years, was fired." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sports/features/11080/index1.html

cached page link Uconnstud (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All of these items HAVE BEEN AND ARE IN the article, with the exception of the Title IX issue, because it is inaccurate. St. John's altered its programs to have an even number of men and women's althletics. The school was planning to add Lacross for some time, and had to drop another men's sport to accomodate its addition in 2003. The wording you have above, makes it appear as thought the university added the sport in defiance of the Title IX accomodations which is falacious. TiconderogaCCB (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)(talk) 20:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

do you have an article to back up the claim that that it was planning to add lacrosse for some time? why would they eliminate it and bring it back? the wording isn't in defiance. that is what it said in the torch (st john's student newspaper) Uconnstud (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Not off hand, however, regardless, your text suggests something that is simply not the case. It suggests that adding mens lacross was something done in defiance of the Title IX compliance, and that is grossly inaccurate. At the

end of that year, even with men's lacross, St. John's had 7 mens sports and 10 womens sports, and neither link you provide demonstrates that adding lacross was done in the manner you suggest. Adding the text as it was written would be to misrepresent the situation. --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that St. John's misrepresented facts in an NCAA investigation and was criticized by the NCAA [9] Uconnstud (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to write a couple of lines and put it under "Athletic Misconduct" in "Controversial events" I do not see a problem. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

However, also keep in mind that this is a slipper slope. Though I am not going to do it (in order to be cordial) if you begin listing every minor negative refleciton on the university, you open things up for people to also justify listing every minor positive piece of news, and I can assure you that with the level of involvment that SJU has in the community as a result of its Vincentian activities would be endless. For instance, just consider the news events from SJU's website in the past month:

• February 26, 2008

St. John's Mock Trial Team Takes Third at Atlantic Regional, Advances to National Intermediate Round >

• February 25, 2008

St. John’s Hosts Conference on School Safety >

• February 22, 2008

University Closed, February 22, 2008 - Mock Trial Tournament to Take Place as Scheduled >

• February 21, 2008

Urban Hazards Forum IV: Campus School Safety and Emergency Preparedness Conference to be Held by St. John's/U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA Region II >

• February 21, 2008

St. John's Jumpstart Chapter Reaches Out to Community in Honor of Black History Month >

• February 14, 2008

Jamaican Playwright Trevor Rhone Performs Inspirational Memoir “Bellas Gate Boy” at St. John’s University >

• February 14, 2008

St. John’s To Host Atlantic Regional Round of the National Mock Trial Tournament >

• February 12, 2008

St. John’s University’s Freshman Applications Soar to More Than 35,000 >

• February 11, 2008

Professor Claire Serant to be Honored by New York Association of Black Journalists >

• February 6, 2008

Craig Newmark, Founder of Online Classified Site, Craigslist, Comes to St. John's for Lecture on February 7 >

• February 5, 2008

“COPS for COPS” New York Shields Inc. Awards Dinner Honors St. John’s University Public Safety Officers, NYPD Cadet >

• February 5, 2008

St. John's to Host African Heritage Celebration 2008 During Black History Month >

• February 4, 2008

St. John's Mock Trial Team Places Tenth at Big Apple Invitational >

• February 1, 2008

Trevor Rhone to be Featured During African Heritage Celebration with Performance of "Bellas Gate Boy" >

• February 1, 2008

St. John’s University Continues Founder’s Week Celebration With Vincentian Chair of Social Justice Lecture and Vincentian Convocation >

• January 29, 2008

Rev. Peter Le Jacq Speaks of Erasing Borders Through His Work as a Missioner During Founder’s Week Lecture at St. John’s University >

• January 29, 2008

“Campaign 2008” Comes to St. John’s University as National TV Affiliate CNN Visits Queens Campus >

• January 28, 2008

St. John’s University to Host Art Exhibition of Recent Works by Former Professor Bill Ronalds at Sun Yat Sen Hall > —Preceding unsigned comment added by TiconderogaCCB (talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

not a problem, if you can find supporting evidence i'm fine with it. "The former St. John's University basketball player Lamont Middleton was charged with assault and resisting arrest yesterday when he hit a police officer after the car he was in was stopped for a traffic violation in the Bronx, the police said. " [10] Marijuana Arrest by former student Jack Wolfinger, [11] Jayson Williams manslaughter case Shareef Fordham cocaine arrest and conviction [12] Uconnstud (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm cool with the NCAA story. However, the issues you just posted seem, to me, not to be appropriate for the article. Unlike the other controversial events in the SJU article, these the University had no control or power over, and the fact that they were students of St. John's did not play a key role in the significance of the news. But again, if you think it needs to be added, I'm fine with it being in controversial events, and we can continue to discuss it with other users on the talk page. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I am very much concerned about the copyright violations that are being inserted throughout the article. Uconnstud (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It troubles me that you are so concerned. What might we do to alleviate that? By the way, interesting that UConn's page doesn't have a scandal section...maybe we should remedy that. --71.253.38.28 (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

no one is stopping you. Uconnstud (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but I lack the disrespect necessary to vehemently degrade other schools for seemingly petty reasons.--71.253.49.225 (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This has to stop! 150.210.226.6 (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See above for the root of my frustration. Anyone else would have utilized much stronger language by this point. However, I will refrain from underhanded comments, as it is my primary goal to solve the article dispute, not bicker with UConnStudd. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert Feb. 2008

UConnStudd significantly altered the content of the article causing major edits to be lost. Though there are additions to his version, I am reverting to the prior version and requesting that he make edits to that edition. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 13:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Also note, UConnStudd's revert caused losses to History, Academics, Vincentian Heritage, Campuses, Committees & Institutes, Community Service, and the loss of several images. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, I have made several attempts to be cordial and discuss this article. To revert without discussing such action, and to allow so much content to be lost as a consequence, demonstrates that you are unwilling to cooperate in bettering the article, and that your motives are purely to create the most bias and negative article possible. If you want some of your additions to be added to the page, then add them, but to revert to an old article causing significant content loss is just frustrating. When you misrepresent a school, you are not only hurting the school itself, but all the alumni and students who hope to get jobs and depend on the reputation of their institution. That is not to say that negative reflections on the school should not be in the article, but that you should consider whether your version is an accurate representation of the institution, is compliant with Wiki standards, and is an appropriate and necessary edition, because your actions effect the wellbeing of thousands of people. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your major reversion here [13] is just as bad. No one agreed to your changes. You can easily just make the changes on this version. Uconnstud (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My revisions incorporated all the things you wished to have included in the article, with the excpetion of a few disputed items. You are reverting the entire article and losing substaintial amounts of information. Again, why are you doing this? Obviously this is not a consructive version of the article, and it lacks many of the updates to stats, information etc. Please stop. Please Stop. Please stop. This is absurd. Reverting back to prior version. If you want to add to this version, please do, but do not revert as MANY items are lost when you do so. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add what you like to this version. We can discuss the order here. Uconnstud (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your revision lacks SO much content. It is absurd to add to this version, when the prior version contains all the same information, plus significant updates. It would be like me reverting to a page with one sentence and say, "Feel free to add to it". Do you ever engage in real conversion, or do you just revert and give one liners? I am so fed up with this scenerio and I wish you would realize the significance of your actions. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC) If you will quit reverting, I will sit down tonight and try to incorporate your revisions into the complete version of the article. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You keep adding copyrighted photos to the article as well as copy and paste from other websites. Which you can't do at all! it must be original material and material that has references. Which you don't seem to want to do. Uconnstud (talk) 18:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

None of the photos added were copyrighted, I know that because I took them myself! The logos from other articles are in wiki commons and can be used in any article. Again, cease the reverting. If you have issue with a section, lets discuss it. Otherwise, since this is the more comprehensive version, it is the one that should be added too. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak... i think you might need to take a restUconnstud (talk) 18:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw one of the photos at St. John's. So you didn't take all of them. Cease your reverting and add bread and life to the version that i've listed. Uconnstud (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. All the photos are originals that I produced. Further, there is more to add than Bread to Life - Your revert caused the loss of over 6,000 characters. Again, why, why, why, are you reverting to an outdated and poorly formated version of the article? This is crazy. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

St John's University Original Location

1936 it moved to Queens campus http://www.thetablet.org/03032007/stories12.html Uconnstud (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Brooklyn [14] Uconnstud (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bed-Stuy [15] Uconnstud (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Frank Padavan

St. John's University is using its powers to oust a State Senator [16] Uconnstud (talk) 19:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

OK, I will break down the list of prominent things I noticed, and suggest possible solutions. Please note that I am basing all my findings regarding content on information I find on the college's website.

1. The number of students enrolled.

This is a pretty straightforward fact, as this clearly states the current enrollment. The article should reflect this undeniable fact.

2. Location: Brooklyn vs. Queens/NYC.

This page notes that the campuses are located in various boroughs of NYC. However, Brooklyn is not included. I would have the article say that the college is in New York City, because the campuses are in different places around the city, but this is only my opinion.

3. History section

Here, I honestly like Uconnstead's version, as the other version is an almost verbatim copy/paste from here, whereas Uconnstead's is (imho) more suited for an encyclopedia.

4. Order of sections

I cannot easily determine what the correct procedure should be. The history section should be first, after that, it really makes no practical difference.

5. Bread and Life program and similar additions such as the section about "Vincentian Heritage"

These sections seem to be verbatim copy/pastes from the college's website, and probably should be articles in their own right, if they are notable. Either way, they should be paraphrased to be encyclopedic, or they should be deleted. Otherwise, they are plagiarism.

6. Images in sports section

The copyrighted Madison Square Garden should probably be removed, as appropriate fair-use rationale probably could not be established for it. However, the other images are, imho, fine, as they give constructive commentary on the section and make it more visually appealling.

7. The Torch

In my opinion, this section is fine, although it may be extraneous. In my opinion. the optimal situation would be for the section to be expanded and made into it's own article.

8. Alumni

If the people Ticonderoga has added to this section have their own articles, leave them there. If not, remove them. No red links. The note about the one player being "key in the something brawl" is extraneous. If readers wonder who he is, they can click the link and find out.

9. Categories and stuff near that

The education in queens category seems more appropriate. Also, don't remove the links starting with "de:", "fr:", "it:", etc. These link to equivalent articles in other language Wikipedias and are usually added by bots. Do not remove them. Check the sidebar where it says "this page in other languages" and make sure all the links are functional.

Hopefully, that helps some. I wish I could respond to your comments immediately, but I have to go to work like RIGHT NOW, so I will probably not be able to come back here very soon. Either way, PLEASE!!! Do not keep reverting each other as that will only get you blocked.

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a major problem with what j delanoy stated Uconnstud (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

1- fix as stated

2- I provided links above which show that the school started in Brooklyn. It is no longer located in brooklyn. It's primary campus is in jamaica queens.

3- My history section isn't a direct copy and paste I agree with what j.delanoy stated. In fact I believe it was stated earlier on the talk page that the current version is a copy and paste.

4- Since no determination is made on the order we should continue discussing that.

5- I agree make bread and life into their own pages or summarize them. They are right now plagurism. They need to be revised.

6- The msg picture isn't fair use. It should be deleted. As should the st john's poem on the page and the big east logo

7- the torch is fine. maybe we can make our own article about it.

8- I agree, but Red links may be necessary b/c some people aren't famous in their own right.

9- Agree as stated.

Uconnstud (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

TiconderogaCCB – Response

1. Version 1 contains the accurate enrollment numbers.
2. Both pages indicate that Brooklyn was the home of the original campus, but it is nationally recognized as St. John’s University (New York) and should remain listed as such. Version 2, calling it St. John’s University (Jamaica, Queens, New York), does not properly identify the university and limits its scope.
3. I am not as concerned about the history section, though there are sections in Version 1 that should be adapted into any history section.
4. The order is far more appropriate in Version 1, and voting on a preferred version should establish a preferred order by editors.
5. Bread & Life and Vincentian Heritage are integral parts of the University. These sections were not plagiarized, but summarized and cited. However, if we prefer that it less mirror the citations, then we can update the information, but these should definitely be in the article. They are far more important than the list of scandals that UConn wishes to keep in the article, and that I have agreed too.
6. MSG can be deleted if it is not fair use. However, the St. John’s alma mater is something that is listed on many university pages, and is not in conflict with the purpose of the article. The Big East logo is fair use, and the university is identified through its association with that organization, so I lobby for it to stay. However, I am willing to relent and allow it to be deleted if most editors agree.
7. The torch should stay in the article, and if needed an additional article expanding the summary can be created. But some mention of the paper should be in the SJU article.
8. I agree. Red links should be deleted on alumni page.
9. No opinion.

I think J.Delany was helpful in establishing an overall view of the article from a fresh perspective. However, UConnstudd has taken this to be a blanket endorsement of his article, when in fact, as stated in the “Which Version do you Prefer Section” , if any, he preferred elements of TiconderogaCCB’s article, Version 1. I think the order, and general content of this article is more appropriate for the purposes of an encyclopedia article on a university. I think it would be appropriate for UConnStudd to at least stipulate to the order, as it seems to be preferred by users. There are significant updates to data and information that is not contained in UConnStudd’s version, and a general revert once the page is unprotected would be a blatant disregard for this whole process. The voting on preferred version will provide us the most information on what other editors are thinking, and should be the primary consideration going forward. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So as it stands

1) will change

2)The history section will reflect that it was originally started in Brooklyn and moved to Queens

3) History section should reflect UConn's version with no disagreement from Ticon

4)History section first (as no one disagreed) and the others will be determined by vote

5)Keep Bread and life, but make their own articles. Also shorten Bread and life and vincentian heritage on the SJU Page.

6)Delete MSG photo

7)keep torch in article and make another torch page

8)I disagree with red links. Sometimes people aren't big enough to have their own page but, that doesnt mean they aren't prominent alumni. Such as Taffner who has a building named after him but isn't prominent enough for his own article

9) agree as listed on j.delany.

As it stands the only thing that needs to be discussed is the order of the page, which is number 4. Since the Bread and life and vincentian heritage is important to Ticoneroga maybe he can create articles on them. what do you think? here is some help Vincent de Paul , Vincentian Studies Institute , Society of Saint Vincent de Paul Uconnstud (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I can probably agree to most of this, but we need to determine what section headings we are keeping or discarding. Your version has headings that mine does not and visa versa. If you are willing to forgo getting angry at each other for an evening, I will work tomorrow on a list and order for us to discuss. However, I am probably going to be fairly adamant about staying close to the order of Option 1, but can compromise on certain things. I have not objected to the inclusion of negative issues regarding SJU, my concern has been their prominance in the article before other more significant information and facts. This is the first time I've felt we can work something out, so lets try not to f@#! it up.- --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is being discarded. Some will be shortened and a new article made. The only thing we disagree on is the order. Well I think your anger is pretty sexy. I didn't know you could curse, it kind of aroused me ;) So lets see what you can come up with here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uconnstud/Stjohnscompromise xoxo besos Uconnstud (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond to that. Kudos. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Which version do you prefer?

Please provide input on which version of the article should be the standard.

• Option 1 - [17] (protected version)
• Option 2 - [18]

Thanks, --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

J.Delany agreed to this verions [19]

J.Delany did not agree with any version. Have him report so if he indeed did. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree to this verion as well [20] 63.113.199.109 (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree to Option 1, the other is absurd. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, someone certainly has an axe to grind with SJU. Talk about POV, moving all the (unfavorable) rankings up to the top and giving huge play to all the scandals while downplaying the importance of the university's other programs. #1 clearly better encapsulates what the university is about (and for the record, I have no dog in this fight, I was just interested in finding out about the school and saw the article was protected, then came to see why). 216.15.40.54 (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer option 1--199.224.21.254 (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I did not agree to either version. Although there was more I agreed to in vs. 1 than vs. 2, I thought that there was good content in both versions. In any case, I think that my suggestions were good ones, and Uconn said above that he had no major problems with them. It would be good if Ticonderoga stated one way or another what he thinks about my suggestions. If he doesn't have any major problems either, then the conflict is over. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, wow is right. Option 1 is much better.---165.190.59.183 (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the first option, option 1. For the record, I am appalled that some people have tried to degrade St. John's through their wikipedia edits. This is rediculous. We can see who you are. You are not only degrading the St. John's wikipedia page, but your own character. Shame on you. I think the first option is more encyclopedic and a fair lens through which to view St. John's. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to vote.130.49.219.121 (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)PEB

I prefer the 1st option. 130.49.219.127 (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I also prefer the first option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.148.53 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I vote for option 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.123.109 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My preference is also for the first option. Where one is geographically located is irrelevant, considering that Option 1 was written by an alumnus of the institution, which provides inside information and experience which can then provide readers and prospective students with information that might not be known by someone not familiar with SJU, or someone attending another institution. It seems that someone here, like many other Wikipedians I've encountered, is being all too self-righteous. Keep it protected! - --Jsdixie uk (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Vote fraud Since Ticon is obviously from Pennsylvania [21] [22] [23] and [24] and we have a number of new edits from accounts that are pennsylvania based [25] and [26], [27]. I'm going to move to simply ignore these random ip "votes" Uconnstud (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC

Vote Concerns

i move to close the vote on an unofficial vote. there are a high number of suspicious votes and SPA's. there is no purpose in voting on one version over another. there is good in each version. i feel that we should vote on each section rather than a whole version. 150.210.226.6 (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of these votes are coming from SJU Alumni Association members in Pennsylvania. These are individuals with a vested interest in the integrity of the article. However, even if you ignore these votes, you cannot ignore the input from users without an interest in the article, who have all indicated a preference for Option 1. This vote should remain open. If you want to ignore or combine the PA votes as one, do so, but we cannot fully ignore the preferences of all users and individuals with interest in the article. You cannot close a vote simply because its not going your way. --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply going to follow the 3rd opinion of what was agreed to with J.Delany. Since there are a lot of voting concerns in the option 1 and option 2. I agree with the compromise on each section that J.delany originally proposed. Not this whole one way or the other proposal. Also I never agreed to this vote as well, You simply decided we would hold elections. I never shifted from the agreeement that we use the third opinion that j.delany proposed. consequently I will be only following that section. ps look who made the top 25 yet another year!!! [28] Uconnstud (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You cannot ignore other users comments simply because you do not like their conclusions. Even if you discount the vote, there is still input here from many users unassociated with the article, all with a preference for the structure of Option 1. Not one user agreed with your version of the article. J.Delany is only one individual, and does not outweigh the interest of other non-partisan users, and even he indicated a preference for the structure of Option 1. At the VERY least it would be appropriate to maintain the order of Option 1 after protection is lifted, and to discuss edits from that point forward. I do not think Wiki administrators are going to be very agreeable if you revert to your order given all the input we have recieved on this issue from several users. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. Your referring to basketball rankings only emphasizes your bias.

First of all there is no bias. Second of all there are quite a few SPA's with no history coming around and voting. It's pretty entertaining if i might say so. Thirdly one person did disagree with you [29]. Additionally I'm going for a compromise of each section rather than an outright one way or the other. this is what wikipedia is about. compromise. You shouldn't talk about disregarding peoples opinions because must I remind you were to revert [30] when something didn't go your way [31] . Uconnstud (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As I explained, some of those users were SJU Alumni in Pittsburgh, however, there were many contributions from users with no interest in the dispute. As for reverting, I think we are both guilty of reverting to a prefered version and discounting each others editions. I'm all for trying to compromise, but have not felt that you were open to it until now. We'll use the page you set up and talk more about it tomorrow. Hopefully we can find some middle ground. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion project

I am responding to a Third opinion request.

Of two versions listed for comparison, the 12:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC) version, called "Option 1" above, seems to me to be a more encyclopedic organization of the information.

I hope this helps. — Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I'm referring to the structure of the article, not its content. — Athaenara ✉ 04:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be stubbed, and then replace information as it can be referenced. That is usually a good way to shut down an edit war over unreferenced content. If you were to evaluate this article based on good article standards, both versions would fail pretty hard based on lack of references and encyclopedic content. The first one is barely better in that regard, so if this "vote" has to proceed then thats where it should end up. I'll point out that we don't really do votes, as such, on Wikipedia. Polls are generally regarded as discussions, if they are done at all, and vote counting is ignored in favor of weighing the value of the comments. Avruch ^T 23:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Avruch. However, I think stubbing the article would likely just continue the problem. I agree that the polls should be viewed as discussion, and many users are giving their input on the issue which should aid the goal of forming at least a base article and order on which we can build. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)