User talk:InfoAgent

Clarification and consistency

I believe that the article needed a serious improvement to grammar. Also, comparing the Diplom to the Bachelors and Masters system is very difficult. This is the entire reasoning behind the Bologna Process. Article needed clarification on this issue, i.e. Bachelors degrees cannot be generalized as they vary from country to country in terms of years to attainment. To solve this discrepancy, the example of the U.S. (and the English-speaking world) was added to the chart in the article. Here the minimum requirement is four years. InfoAgent ^(contribs) 08:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to reverts made by an anonymous IP concerning the Abitur, it really has no place in this article as it has nothing to do with university study or the "diplom." The chart in this article is meant to be a very rough comparison of university systems internationally. Furthermore, it should only include university study. The GPAs and SATs in the US are comparable to the German Abitur, so the inclusion of the Abitur is really irrelevant on the chart. Lastly, by no means can the Abitur be translated into two years of university study. This should really not become a revert war. InfoAgent ^(contribs) 05:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand the system. The Abitur is not a test. It is a study period similar to the first two general years of the US Bachelor. With the Abitur you don't start with the first but in a higher semester in US. You can remove the two general years from the US Bachelor or leave the Abitur where it is.

No! The issue here is that this article concerns the “Diplom” (only) which is part of university study in several European countries (and NOT only Germany!). The Abitur in Germany falls under secondary schooling and it culminates in a test (yes, it is also a test FYI). Also I cannot understand your explanation grammatically. Please try to improve on your use of English so that one can understand your argument. Also, if you are having trouble with the definition of Abitur please see the Wikipedia page for it here. Please also see What Wikipedia is Not. Remember to use a four tidles (~) to sign every post. InfoAgent 07:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry InfoAgent, but I think your excuses are very embarrassing. One can clearly understand what he means. Students with A-Levels or Abitur start in USA in a higher semester and not the first. Therefore it is clearly part of university studies if you compare it with an US Bachelor. By the way the Abitur does NOT culminate in a test. See the corresponding article in wikipedia or better look in the German wikipedia. Sacrumi 15:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embarassing? What? Wikipedia is not a place for personal attacks or for trying to prove a point. Again please see What Wikipedia is Not if you are having trouble. Based on the language problem again I believe that this is the same user as before. I still do not completely understand what you are trying to say but please do not continue to argue that the Abitur is university study because that would be futile. I believe what you are trying to say refers to transfer credits but that applies to US students as well. For example, high school students can take an AP exam for college credit but that does not mean AP courses are part of university study, you see? Whatever your argument, the Abitur does not pass as two years in the chart or as part of university study. This is completely unfounded and not even cited. Please try to understand how this works. InfoAgent 17:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You started with personal attacks against the IP. I pointed that out in my previous discussion. If you have problems understanding correct English - don't blame other ones for it. I remove now the American Bachelor because it is obvious that it is not comparable (at least not with people like you who are not able to research information). You may start with the American Bachelor a Master-program in Europe, but most likely you will have to do some undergraduate studies before you can apply for a Master (3 years specialized studies vs. 2 years in the US). Sacrumi 05:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this issue not become an edit war. If either of you have a problem, please take it to mediation or start an RfC. I would also remind Sacrumi of civility. Please do not revert this article again. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 19:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: I did not start reverting. I added information and InfoAgent revert them every time. Proves can be found at the US ministry of education, university/college homepages in the US as well as German wikipedia and Germany's ministry of education. Sacrumi 05:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peace-Offer

Dear InfoAgent, I am sick of getting insulted by you. I offer you peace and you just ignore it. I am not insulting you, because I think that is stupid. So just read what I have written. Thank you for your peaceful co-operation. Interesting for me is that you ignore copyrights of images ("Blanked the page") - Ah yes you live in your own neat world. Some honest user should inform the Wikipedia Admins about it. Sacrumi 00:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sac, I really shouldn't even respond to your awkward comments but I have a policy of being nice to Newbies even if I am personally insulted or threatened...

Appartently your English makes you insecure but you are only fooling yourself if you think that your English is anything more than elementary. I was just trying to help you out by giving you a few pointers. A simple "thanks" would do fine. Other than this, I have no idea why you think that I insulted you.

Furthermore, if you are neither German nor American, then why do you pretend to be such an expert in the US and German education systems? This whole thing seems rather awkward, don't you think? Anyways, this was never a war (as you may have thought) but merely a difference of opinion. There is really no need for offering "peace" or "truces" because I am a contributor of good faith . I think that if you use Wikipedia more and contribute more on a regular basis, then you will find that this happens quite commonly between users. I would, however, suggest that you move on from this issue and try to experiment with other articles because, as of now, you are only a Troll with an agenda to hijack and take hostage of the diplom article (that is not my opinion but it is what your contributions clearly depict to other users). As for your threats, they hold no weight and will only receive a laugh from experienced users. While blanking and free use problems are issues, you will find that they very common among Wikipedians and is by no means grounds for disciplinary action (not to mention this is not recent activity). So, in the end, try to read up on the Wikipedia:guidelines a little more and move on to newer and better topics. InfoAgent 04:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hijack or hostage it. I think you are just angry and have no arguments other then "your English is elementary". Do you think this is a good discussion. It is definitely under my standards? Your "record" does not show much contributions, too. Why don't we let some experienced user decide? Another thing: What makes you an expert in the German and American Education system. I would really like to know more about your background? (I hope you understand this "elementary" English). Sacrumi 08:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:SIR crest.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SIR crest.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Pirate3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pirate3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Crest shu.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Crest shu.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. BetacommandBot 04:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:P5151461-m.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:P5151461-m.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Davepape (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:DSCN06311.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi InfoAgent!
We thank you for uploading Image:DSCN06311.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Talk:John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Jusdafax 14:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: your archiving

I am made curious by your edit/archiving of the talk page for the school article. It was hardly overlarge, and I must say I don't understand your motivations. Could you kindly clue me in to your thinking in doing so? I'll watchlist your page here to watch for a reply. Thanks, Jusdafax 15:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]