User talk:Unemployed Northeastern

Welcome!

Hello, Unemployed Northeastern, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployed Northeastern, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Unemployed Northeastern!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained removal of reliably sourced content

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page University of Texas School of Law has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Worldbruce (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content was not reliably sourced, but rather originated with advocacy group Law School Transparency, which is known for unreliable and biased data. Presentation of data used non-standard and meaningless categories favored by LST rather than standard and well established data categories. Removal was appropriate. Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)UN.[reply]

[For clarity, consolidated discussion thread here.]

Removed data inserted by law school transparency advocacy group, which is an unreliable source. Suggested replacement with more accurate data from the American Bar Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unemployed Northeastern (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Unemployed Northeastern: Are the extensive edits you're making the result of consensus in some discussion? The first paragraph in this edit removed text that references the ABA Employment Summary on the law school's official website. That is not an unreliable blog, as the edit summary suggests. You write "inserted by ... advocacy group." Is there evidence that the origin of the paragraph was an edit by LST as opposed to one that cited LST as a source, and if so, does that matter if the source cited now is not LST? Worldbruce (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Wordbruce The categories are non-standard categories created by LST, which is an unreliable source, and violate Neutral Point of View policy. The citation should first be to total employment, and only then provide more specific categories. Excluding some categories and including others has no justification--it's just something LST made up, and is therefore not reliable. Inclusion of all categories without comment would also be acceptable. See the reliable source noticeboard for discussion of LST's unreliability.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Unemployed Northeastern:Thank you for initiating a discussion of LST at the reliable source noticeboard. I'll let the reliable source debate play out there. Note that the RSN will only determine whether LST is a reliable source for the statements where it is cited. They will not render an opinion about article content. In other words, they may say that LST should not be used to support something, but they will not say that something should not be in an article.

It is important not to conflate "editor" and "source". If the editor who cited LST here was LST, then what they inserted may receive extra scrutiny for NPOV, but it will not necessarily be removed, even if LST is found to be an unreliable source, if the inserted statement is supported by another, reliable, source.

I find unconvincing the argument that the category "full-time, long-term, JD-required employment nine months after graduation" is a non-standard category created by LST. The law school's own ABA Employment Summary Report has as its main category, "full time, long term, bar passage required". If there's a vital distinction between the two, that is not an excuse for deletion, but an opportunity to improve the wording or tag the statement for maintenance. If you believe additional categories should be mentioned, and/or other sources used, then adding those categories/sources would be a less controversial approach than deleting material sourced to the law school's ABA Employment Summary Report. Worldbruce (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce These are only one of many categories which the ABA groups under the heading of employment. Focusing exclusively on this category of employment is misleading and inappropriately suggests that it is the only kind of employment that counts. LST has also excluded solo practitioner jobs, as if those don't count--something the ABA does not do. So lets agree that the right approach is to include overall employment, as well as all other categories of employment, without privileging any particular category or adopting LST's preferred measures of employment. I do not have time to add all of this information to these articles, but no employment information, or a simple reference to the availability of information on the ABA website, would be preferable to the misleading way in which employment is now being described on these pages, and the inappropriate citations to websites like LST that try to commercially profit from data that is available for free! Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

LST is not a reliable source per wikipedia policy.

Law School Transparency is not a reliable source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources E-commerce sources While the content guidelines for External links prohibits linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available. Biased or opinionated sources See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Bias in sources and Wikipedia:Neutrality of Sources Shortcut: WP:BIASED Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". Questionable and self-published sources Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources Questionable sources Shortcuts: WP:QUESTIONABLE WP:QUESTIONED

Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Beware of sources which sound reliable but don't have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. The Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might have a reputation for "predatory" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles.[10][11] Self-published sources (online and paper) Shortcuts: WP:USERGENERATED WP:USERG WP:UGC Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG. Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Reliability of lstscorereports.com as a source

Hello, Unemployed Northeastern. I've checked Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and I'm not seeing any discussion on if lstscorereports.com is or is not a reliable source. Can you point me to the Wikipedia discussion or determination that this source is unreliable? Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the wholesale removal of this source until the discussion you have started at WP:RSN has a chance to actually come to any conclusions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Employment is a fine category to have. Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it must be sourced reliably to Census Bureau or ABA or NALP data, and it must use standard data definitions and categories, not ones invented by an advocacy group like LST which specifically describes its goal as driving down law school enrollment.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you have read by now, your wholesale deletions -- the very day you created your account -- are not viewed as appropriate. Wait for RSN discussion. Also, you in your edit summary suggested that the section Employment was not appropriate. That's simply wrong. Furthermore, your deletions went beyond LST. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The deletions were material either sourced to LST or inserted by LST using non-standard and misleading groupings and categorizations of data. See the RSN discussion. Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the deletions included removal and editing of unflattering employment or debt figures, whether from LST, USNews, law school bubble sites or the college themselves. Also, do note that while you can remove Talk warnings and comments that are unflattering towards your editing, the history of them remains, as do your edits elsewhere in Wikipedia. Stesmo (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. News is a reliable source. ABA and U.S. News debt figures were left intact (or should have been). Tuition Bubble and LST are not reliable sources and should be removed. I agree we can include debt figures if sourced properly and confirmed. We should also include student loan default rates--which are extremely low--where available. However, LST and LSTB remain unreliable sources and should be deleted from all of the articles to which they have been added in a targeted effort over the last 2 months.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP policy

Please note that the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia. Posts such as this [1] are entirely unacceptable, asserting as fact negative claims regarding named individuals sourced to nothing but a blog. I have redacted the assertion, and strongly advise you not to make similar posts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does it violate the BLP policy? Tokaz has not denied the allegations of cyberharassment, and Leiter Reports is a reliable source.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North -- Andy is correct that are not allowed, as you suggested was the case, to violate BLP policy on pages other than articles about the living person. The rule applies to all pages. Furthermore, you state the person is guilty of x. Now, you state something less ... that he has been alleged to be guilty of x, but has not denied the allegation. Surely, given your background, you understand the wide gulf between "accused, and has not denied" and "guilty" ... where a person is not under any obligation to respond to an accusation. Andy is correct that your BLP violations of that sort are entirely unacceptable. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The statement before was clearly sourced in a footnote to a reliable source, Professor Brian Leiter. I was not aware of the BLP policy, and I have edited the material to comply with it to include and inline citation. I think if you take a look at Derek Tokaz's posts under his own name on Constitutional Daily and elsewhere, he clearly has cyberharassed individual law professors. The only question is the extent to which he has done so through sock puppetry.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have an RS stating that he did so, then you can't state flatly as you did ... that he did so. And you can't engage in OR. Please stop violating BLP. Epeefleche (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leiter--as a widely published University of Chicago Professor--is a reliable source. What is OR? On a talk page discussing edits to an article, I can indeed do research. And what Tokaz says in his own words is a reliable source for what Tokaz says. Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The personal view of one professor is not Fact. And his blog has no editorial oversight. Even if it did -- his view is only his view. If he is of the view that x is a criminal, you do not have RS support to state that x is a criminal. Surely you can understand this, given what appears to be your background. And, for you to on your own say "x is a criminal" on the basis of what one person, not by any stretch an "expert" in cyberharassment, asserts, is a clear BLP violation. If you continue engaging in BLP violations you will be blocked, as that is what we do with repeat BLP violators. Epeefleche (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Eppefleche You do not appear to understand Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. The views of one distinguished and well published professor are more reliable than the views of many unknown (or at least unaccomplished) bloggers such as the folks who run LST. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. . . . Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. . . . News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact . . . Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. . . . Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. " Leiter is published in many impressive third party publications. No one at LST is. So how about we stick to the issues about LST and you quit making threats and trying to change the subject?Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I agree with Andy, above. Please see my comments above -- you are violating BLP. More than one editor has indicated as much; none agree with you. Please don't edit against consensus, and don't edit against BLP. Epeefleche (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Wikipedia policy itself. The policy is clear that reliable sources may be used when the content is relevant to the discussion. Comments by Andy above were about an older version of the comment that did not include an inline citation to the source, Professor Brian Leiter, and that did not include corroborating evidence of signed harassing statements by Mr. Tokaz on his own website. Your attempts to censor a conversation about the reliability of LST as source of information about law school, and your refusal to engage on the merits of the conversation or present any contradictory evidence is very telling, as is your efforts to delete substantive comments on this discussion board. Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be practicing IDNHT. Read what I have written, what the other editor wrote on the talk page in question, and what Andy wrote. Leiter is not an expert in the law of harassment, and in any event even if he were -- which he is not -- his opinion would not constitute fact. You've been warned now many times in your few hours of editing under this name. Continue with your BLP violations, and you will understand the consequence. Epeefleche (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only you are persisting in stating that this is a BLP violation. No one else is, and it clearly is not under Wikipedia's policy as currently phrased. Andy said the policy applied to a talk page for reliable sources. After that comment, the original entry about anonymous cyberharassment was edited to include an inline citation to an expert. No one is saying Derek Tokaz has been convicted of any crimes. Harassing people on the internet by calling them names and using foul language--though perhaps a sign of unsound mind and poor character--is not illegal. Leiter is an expert on philosophy (including moral philosophy), the definition of ad-homenim attacks, legal education, evidence, and the blogosphere. His scholarly work has been cited more than 3,000 times.^[1] He's also technically sophisticated and his identification of Tokaz is therefore reliable, or at least sufficiently reliable that it should remain in place with Wikipedians and readers forming their own judgement about it's reliability with as much evidence available to them about Mr. Tokaz's activities. Quit trying to censor the conversation and get back to the substance. LST is clearly not a reliable source. P.S. I do not know what IDNHT is. Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Epeefleche was referring to WP:IDNHT. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 13:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=jbznB3EAAAAJ&hl=en

As to your tagging the article on Above the Law as Non-notable

Open an AfD if you like -- this has been tagged without reason and without action for nearly a year. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you suddenly decided to untag it just before citing to Above the Law to retaliate against a source you don't like.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incoherent walls of text

Please don't post incoherent walls of text, as another editor just pointed out to you was what you did here. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche I'm concerned that the underlying text could be deleted by LST to cover their trails.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give a link to the thread that you copied? I want to see it. Where else (on Wikipedia) have you posted about it? I don't think we should overlook that kind of canvassing or off-wiki coordination (I'm not totally sure what's happening) simply because you reported it in a "wrong" manner. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait nevermind, I'll go read what you posted at the Editor assistance board. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opening of discussion closed by uninvolved seasoned edtior

When an uninvolved seasoned editor closes a discussion, please do not -- when you are an involved editor -- simply reopen it, as you did here. The editor already advised you that you were at the wrong noticeboard. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was a separate issue of spamming, as opposed to reliable sources. The editor collapsed because of a formatting issue. I resolved the formatting issue, and now the spam issue should be discussed on the spam noticeboard If you wish to continue to be involved in the Law School Transparency Discussion, please disclose whether or not you have ever accepted payment or entered any raffle for payment from TLS, LST, Spivey consulting or any related parties. The discussions you have critiqued noted that many wikipedia editors have been compromised by off Wiki-coordination and payments.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Making insinuations about editors who disagree with you is inappropriate and unwelcome. Please assume good faith while interacting with others. If your arguments about content are sound, they will convince the community. Worldbruce (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce I'm not attacking anyone. I'm asking for disclosures which are required under Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Policy. Epeefleche is the one who was attacking other editors, which is why I think disclosures are in order. By the way, I've noticed that in spite of Epfeelche's many attacks on me and other Wikipedia editors as well as individuals, you have yet to post a comment to his talk page. Why is that? Is it because you've been agreeing with Epeefleche from the start of the conversation and arguing his side? Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Blocking

@ Kevin Gorman

Wikipedia's blocking policy states as follows: 1. Blocks should not be punitive 2. Blocks should be preventative

Your efforts to block this account weeks after a disagreement about content because you think the user is "vicious" and "does not belong here" even though they did not violate any Wikipedia policies is not consistent with Wikipedia's established blocking policy. Please unblock this account and adhere to Wikipedia policies.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This block is preventative: it prevents your future behavior from being as inappropriate as your past. You have inappropriately attacked another user in what would have been a clear violation of WP:OUTING had he not chosen to volunteer his own identity subsequently, and most of the rest of your posts are clear attacks on either the same user, his business, or another BLP. I'll drop a template here momentarily that will tell you how to get a second admin to review my block, but in my view, there's very little chance your block should be overturned in the near future Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Kevin Gorman

What are you talking about? Who are you alleging that I outed? When and where did this alleged outing take place? I have no idea who other editors are on Wikipedia, so how could I possibly out anyone? This makes absolutely no sense. I disagree with you on content and next thing you know, I'm blocked and you start making things up to justify it? And since I haven't made any edits for weeks, why all of a sudden have you decided to implement a block now? That's called retaliation, not prevention. Is it because you don't like people disagreeing with you? Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have explicitly and repeatedly posted information about and attacked inviduals, both editors and noneditors, related to Law School Transparency. As far as I remember, we've not disagreed about content. And since you have explicitly named at least one Wikipedian in the past in the past, I'm not sure how you could claim to not know who any other Wikipedian is. Please use your talk page for a block appeal if anything - nothing else is likely to be productive. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Kevin Gorman

Yes, I noticed you blocked me for disagreeing with you about content. But disagreements about content are not an abuse of editing privileges, unless you think anyone who disagrees with you should be banned. What is the specific reason for the block? Blocking is an extreme action and you have not adequately explained why you took it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unemployed Northeastern (talk • contribs)

UN, use the {{unblock}} template, so a new admin will notice this page. And I think Kevin said here, in the above section, pretty clearly what the reason for your block was. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://scholar.google.com/citations?user=jbznB3EAAAAJ&hl=en

[1]