User talk:TBPJMRamirez

Undiscussed reversion at Georgia State University

Is there any particular reason you are insisting on making the lede of Georgia State University longer and reverting other editors' edits without any discussion or explanation? ElKevbo (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, ElKevbo. I hope I'm doing this right - I've never engaged with someone on my talk page. I reverted your Carnegie revision because I thought it was less clear than my earlier revision - your revision didn't include the name of the organization, which may be obvious to you, but wouldn't necessarily be obvious to a casual reader. I reverted your reversion where you removed the image for "The Signal" student paper because I thought that the inclusion of the imagine improved the visual presentation of the article. I know you mentioned that the image was "unnecessary," but to what extent is any image necessary? I think it improves the visual presentation of the article.TBPJMRamirez (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The classification info in the lede explicitly linked to the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education so I'm not sure how it could be confusing. We really need to work to keep the opening paragraphs of long articles concise so we frequently leave some details in the articles to which we link instead of trying to explain everything in those paragraphs. Editors who want to know more about the classification system or this university's specific classification can easily click on the links that we've provided; we don't have to put that information in this specific place in this specific article. (And if your concern is that readers might not know who does the classifying then I'm not sure that can be quickly and easily explained in this specific article because the classifications were originally created by the Carnegie Foundation but a few years ago the foundation subcontracted them to a research unit at Indiana University. So although they retain their original name and the foundation retains ultimate control over them the exact situation is complicated.)

The newspaper logo is trickier because it's a copyrighted image. We only use copyrighted images when absolutely necessary and never for decoration. In particular, we generally only use logos of organizations in the article about those organizations to help readers identify the topic e.g., the seal and watermark of the university that's used in the infobox at the top of this article. We generally avoid using logos in the body of articles unless we're actually discussing the logo itself. ElKevbo (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should conciseness trump readability and clarity? I feel that my original sentence is unquestionably clearer. How many clicks should a reader have to make to understand a sentence?TBPJMRamirez (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How important is it that we use space in that article to explain the history and context of this classification scheme? Keeping it concise and providing them with precise links with further information seems like a good and necessary compromise. ElKevbo (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History? What are you talking about? I merely named the classification scheme and provided very brief context. Your revision lacked the name of the scheme and any context at all - you were essentially requiring readers to click on a link to even get the name of the scheme and learn the most basic context relevant to the scheme. Your revision seems to have been made with prodigious, career Wikipedia-ers in mind as opposed to casual readers. Clearly Wikipedia is made to serve the latter. The opening section for the article is plenty concise - it's well within the norm established by other articles on universities. You're applying a reader-unfriendly, arbitrary standard to this article that may mean nothing to someone who crashes through making edits to a dozen articles an hour, but the topic of this article actually means something to me, and I insist that the writing adhere to a high standard.TBPJMRamirez (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Student newspaper logo in Georgia State University

I've opened a discussion in the article's Talk page. Please participate. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Connection to Georgia State University?

Do you have a connection to Georgia State University? ElKevbo (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a proud alumnus, but I’m not employed by GSU, if that’s what you’re asking.TBPJMRamirez (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick and helpful response! As an alumnus you should still review our conflict of interest guidelines as many editors would reasonably believe that you may have a conflict of interest in editing your alma mater's article (I tend to stay away from the articles of my alma maters for that same reason). ElKevbo (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Georgia State University, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]