User talk:Jussen

Note that if you start a discussion here, I'll reply on this page, so watch out (and I might let you know that I replied). Jussen 01:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I have my talk page back, post below! Jussen 22:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if I can link to that thing now, it was User talk:Jussen/SuggestBot.

Blair Witch Edits

Actually, it's better to address your edits about an article in the article's Discussion page. After all, that's what it's there for. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. The talk page was more if one wanted to talk about spoiler warnings in general, which might not be a valid discussion for that particular article's talk page. Jussen 22:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike-outs

Just to let you know that, while I have not completley agreed with your methods, you have backed off when asked, and I appreciate that. My edit summary comments about users being disingenuous are not directed at you. Others keep removing spoilers from articles, and making changes to the guidelines (not the "under dispute" tag), and that is not right. The guidelines were made under consesnus, and should be followed UNTIL a new consensus is reached, even if it looks like the new consensus will be for removing the templates. - BillCJ 00:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I guess I'm just new to it all (not to Wikipedia so much, just to the policy side). How do we know we've reached consensus? Right now I just see a request for comment page that feels like churning through molasses. Jussen 01:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland

You were right about Maryland being in the second Public Ivy list. Cka3n only looked at the front cover and not the index which lists all the universities, including University of Maryland, College Park (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/006093459X/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-3715339-8596602#reader-link). I have already fixed the list. Unsuspected 05:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I thought that was the case. It's interesting that the entire UC system appears to be on that list.

It's pretty clear why UMD wasn't on the cover though. Since UC etc was on the cover, including UMD would imply that all USM schools were on the list, when clearly UMBC is not. Jussen 16:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of University of Maryland, College Park

The article University of Maryland, College Park you nominated as a good article has been failed. It had great prose and everything about the writing was nice. However, it had a complete lack of WP:Verifiability and it had obvious WP:OR. Everything in an article needs to be referenced. If you want to see examples of educational institutes that are featured articles look at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Education. I personally like the University of Oklahoma article.

Professor Davies 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvester James Gates

Hi! The only reason I have included this description is that I always try to put as much information of this general type as possible. Feel free to edit it as you find appropriate! All the best, Lubos --Lumidek 21:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Swoogle

Actually, I did delete the article, but restored it after somebody e-mailed me contesting the deletion. You are welcome to open an AFD discussion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article (Finin) is the one who contested its deletion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Terrapins

I thought that was a very funny caption; but I agree, not exactly encyclopedia-worthy material. Jussen (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comma in UMBC's full name

Since the early or mid 1990's, it has been the official policy of UMBC that it's full name has a comma in it. since the mid to late 1990's, the University has been promoting its acronym UMBC as the brand. See the UMBC Office of Institutional Advancement style guide for evidence:

"The four-letter acronym, UMBC, is how we want to be known. The university’s full name — University of Maryland, Baltimore County — should be used when there is a need to be explicit about the name of the institution, e.g., when writing for an audience outside of the region. Even in these instances, the acronym should be used after the first reference. If UMBC is used throughout text, spell out when included in contact information."

Tim Finin (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: University of Maryland is a Public Ivy

Adding references to an opinion does not make it okay to cite that opinion as a fact. The fact that a book was written describing so-called "Public Ivies" and which included UofM did not turn it into fact that UofM is indeed a "Public Ivy".

Your contribution:

The University is considered to be a "Public Ivy;" an institution that "provides an Ivy League collegiate education at a public school price."

Notice the passive voice. This is undesirable, and means that whoever is doing the "considering" is being concealed. Who can we say considers UofM and the other schools to be "Public Ivies"? The Greenes and the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education (and, in my opinion, certain alumni and staff of the listed universities who wish to piggyback on the reputations of true Ivy League universities). There is little to no other documentation of acceptance of the term "Public Ivy", nor of UofM specifically being considered one, by anybody else, and the aforementioned entities (Greenes/JBEH) do not represent a consensus within the academic community that permits a categoric assumption such as "The University is considered to be a Public Ivy".

The proper way to include this information in University of Maryland, College Park would be something along these lines:

The book The Public Ivies: America's Flagship Public Universities listed the University as one of thirty "Public Ivies".

While this is more accurate, it still seems to me to violate the guideline Avoid academic boosterism, especially within the opening paragraph.

The University of Maryland, like all public universities, can have its success described by much more accurate measures than a pointless comparison to a collegiate athletic conference whose members will never share a lot in common with any public university -- a comparison which presumes that the only way a university can achieve prestige is to resemble Yale or Harvard.

Cite needed (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:EditorialCartoonClement.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:EditorialCartoonClement.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. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of University of Maryland Security Operations Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article University of Maryland Security Operations Center is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Maryland Security Operations Center until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Apocheir (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of University of Maryland Security Operations Center

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on University of Maryland Security Operations Center, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
It appears to be about something made up, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Hagennos^Talk 01:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]