User talk:Anthropologique

Welcome!

Hello, Anthropologique, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Little Ivies have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV), and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

But please be more careful to provide sources for the changes you make to articles -- many of your edits to this point look to me more like polemical point-pushing than attempts to improve our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding your contributions to Wesleyan University, please see Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued POV-pushing

Please do not continue to insert references to Wesleyan, "Little Three" references, and empty promotional language like "prestigious" into unrelated articles like you did at Pomona College. It seems like pure POV-pushing (or just plain advertising!) to me -- please realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement for your favorite college. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. However, please take a close look at some of the blatant marketing "fluff" that Wesleyan's closest peers have in their articles (e.g., Haverford, Middlebury). FAIRNESS, above all, please.

Also, if you list Wesleyan's closest peers as "highly" or "most" competitive, please do the same for Wesleyan. The Wesleyan name has been globally recognized for its academic excellence for close to 200 years and should be treated fairly vis-a-vis its closest rivals. How many liberal arts colleges have the number of Fulbright scholars that Wesleyan has (do a little research on it - you may be surprised)? Think it's easy to achieve number 1 in NSF funding?...Wesleyan has led the liberal arts colleges in this area for many years. Again, FAIRNESS above all else.

Anthropologique 03:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued reinsertion of empty, vague promotional language cannot be justified on the ground that such language is present elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, which reminds us that Wikipedia is inconsistent, and tolerates things that it does not condone. A more constructive response to the presence of boosterism in other articles would be to help improve those other articles by providing references and working to make their language more neutral. The competitive mentality that you seem to be displaying does not help build a better encyclopedia; and "FAIRNESS" does not require Wikipedia to become a collection of advertisements. Please do not continue to reinsert unsourced and biased promotional language into Wikipedia's college and university articles. Instead, why not help make the articles better written, more neutral, and better-referenced? -- Rbellin|Talk 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the phrase "highly selective" from other liberal arts colleges, as you have at Amherst College, Williams College, and Middlebury College. These institutions are generally referred to as such by rankings and other college admissions-oriented literature. For instance, take Princeton Review's Toughest to Get Into, which lists all three schools in the top 20 in the United States. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your posts

Please, Anthropologique, sign your posts in the talk pages with four tildes. Thank you. The Ogre 11:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reference tags

Hi there, I replaced the reference and shorten tags you (accidentally?) removed from the Wesleyan article. Some of the material in these sections needs to be referenced, and the material needs to be organized under subheadings or moved to subarticles for readability. The tags aren't an attack or punishment, just an encouragement to imporve the article. Thanks. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC) P.S., the typo in the edit history (add vs. ass) is just that--a typo. No evil intended.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic from the West

Hi, Referring to your post on the Lusitanian talk page, I have confirmation that Celtic from the West was peer-reviewed and confirmed that the person confirming this is the responsible person for such confirmation. Please have no hesitation to use material from this collection of papers from respected researchers in this field to edit the Wikipedia content on this subject.Jembana (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]