User talk:Ncnative556
Regarding your Inquiry on what is "encyclopedic"
[edit]Good question. Some useful guidance is found in the wikipedia help section, which I've pasted below. Just because information is factual doesnt mean it belongs. Escessively detailed information hinders readbility and can come across as too promotional.
From wikipedia help pages:
"In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[1] Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. " See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
for additional details.
--KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowledgeisGood88 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Posted to NcNative556 Talk page on February 25, 2013, regarding article on High Point University
Please reference the article again which I have linked below, about appropriate encyclopedic content. Trivial information detracts from the clarity of the overall thrust of the article, and shouldnt be included. Based on that, the article should not include a detail about campus visits by elementary students, eventhough while true, is a minor detail in the scheme of a topic being treated encyclopedically.
It appears the inclusion of the visit by elementary students is in the interest of broadening the topic of media coverage to allow downplaying the Bloomburg Businessweek article, to be able to label the category "in the media" rather than labeling it as "criticism in the press."
Please post to my talk page to discuss and explain the motivation behind these changes as it seems to be an effort at obscuring unflatttering but valid information in order to give the article a positive promotional slant.
See the article on stylistic writing for encyclopedia articles here on the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
--KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Posted to NcNative556 Talk page on February 23, 2013, regarding article on High Point University
Descriptions of specific schools fall outside the definition of encyclopedic content, and are promotional in tone. A more consistent treatment with the premise of the wiki is to list the various schools as has been done. See the article on stylistic writing for encyclopedia articles here on the wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
--KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Posted to NcNative556 Talk page on February 21, 2013, regarding the article on High Point University
The text you have deleted is factual information from a national publication, with citations, and raises pertinent questions. What is the concern that would cause deleting it, as opposed say to providing additional input? This is your second deletion of the marterial with the reasoning being "no other college wiki article has a section labled "recent criticism in the press".
Perhaps not every college has had such far-reaching challenges raised in a national publication. My sense is this is pertinent information, and is balancing to the promotional nature of the article which site commenters have noted as problematic several times. You and previous editors have deleted the material repeatedly, and given a fawning slant of other additions, it would appear to be an effort to make this a promotional piece, as opposed to an encyclopedic article.
At this juncture, I will restore the language which was deleted and will alert the site monitors to probable edit warring for their intervention as needed. I invite you to dialogue about this on my talk page. KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The commentary in the article on High Point University reported factual challenges to the school raised by the Businessweek article, which the school has not addressed. The user NNative has removed the information. A site moderator has already cited the article as being an advertising piece and needing revision. Information such as the Businessweek assessment should remain in the interest of balance against what is otherwise a marketing piece for the school. The removed text has been restored. NcNative556, in the future, please post to my section if you have questions rather than removing relevant content.
--KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowledgeisGood88 (talk • contribs)
KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Welcome!
Hello, Ncnative556, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. 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 this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
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!--Mishae (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Ncnative556, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi Ncnative556! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
The commentary in the article on High Point University reported factual challenges to the school raised by the Businessweek article, which the school has not addressed. The user NNative has removed the information. A site moderator has already cited the article as being an advertising piece and needing revision. Information such as the Businessweek assessment should remain in the interest of balance against what is otherwise a marketing piece for the school. The removed text has been restored. NcNative556, in the future, please post to my section if you have questions rather than removing relevant content.
--KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC) KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Posted to NcNative556 Talk page on February 21, 2013, regarding the article on High Point University
The text you have deleted is factual information from a national publication, with citations, and raises pertinent questions. What is the concern that would cause deleting it, as opposed say to providing additional input? This is your second deletion of the marterial with the reasoning being "no other college wiki article has a section labled "recent criticism in the press".
Perhaps not every college has had such far-reaching challenges raised in a national publication. My sense is this is pertinent information, and is balancing to the promotional nature of the article which site commenters have noted as problematic several times. You and previous editors have deleted the material repeatedly, and given a fawning slant of other additions, it would appear to be an effort to make this a promotional piece, as opposed to an encyclopedic article.
At this juncture, I will restore the language which was deleted and will alert the site monitors to probable edit warring for their intervention as needed. I invite you to dialogue about this on my talk page.
KnowledgeisGood88 (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring at High Point University
[edit]Please see the result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ncnative556 reported by User:KnowledgeisGood88 (Result: Both warned). If you continue to revert changes by the other party without ever using the article talk page you are risking a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 18
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited High Point University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Today. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
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) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Ncnative556. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)