Talk:University of California, Riverside/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Abomination Quote

There has been a lot of complaining about a sentence that reads:

In a survey by StudentsReview.com, 52% of respondents said they would not attend UC Riverside again if given that chance, with one respondent calling the university "an abomination to higher education."

Multiple individuals have attempted to make a variety of arguments, in a seemingly desperate attempt to argue that the line be removed. So far, I have not read a SINGLE good reason why it does not belong. The fact of the matter is:

UCR students are likely to be dissatisfied with their education. Look at the paragraph: - PR ranks UCR as one of the worst colleges for TA's teaching too many upper-div classes. - PR ranks UCR as one of the worst colleges for poor teaching by professors - PR ranks UCR as one of the worst colleges for availability of professors for help - UCR is ranked LAST in the UC system overall - UCR has the WORST reputation in the UC system (based on peer assessment score) - 1 in 8 freshmen LEAVE UCR less than 1 year after arriving - 70% of freshmen require remedial math classes - 50% of freshment cannot read/write at the college level - GPA/SAT scores have been the lowest in the UC system - UCR has been ranked as one of the worst 20 schools in the nation for student unhappiness - More than HALF of students surveyed by SR.com would NOT go back to UCR if they could do it all again.

The list goes on and on and on. Is it surprising that a student wrote that the university is "an abomination to higher education?" Not really. Much WORSE has been written about the school on studentsreview.com - this one happens to be succinct and to-the-point. It would be unfair to select other quotes from the site that make the school sound worse than the above evidence suggests. Clearly, the "abomination" quote reflects the above statistics well. It also matches the textual context of the two preceding paragaphs on Admissions and "Rankings and Distinctions." Therefore, the quote is CONSISTENT with the published evidence about the university, it is IN CONTEXT with the prior two paragraphs, and it reflects a LIKELY opinion held by many students. There is absolutely no logical and rational reason for why the quote does not belong. I compliment Insert-Belltower for selecting it for this article. It's contributions like that that really add to the quality of the text. UCRGrad 03:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The studentreview.com website you cite is a self-selected survey of a small number of students. It in no way shows what UCR students in general think of their school. Your claim that not a single good reason has been given for disregarding the "data" provided by your cherry picking is clearly made in bad faith. Either that, or you have no understanding of commonly understood principles of logical inference and empirical verification. The fact that you insist on preserving this "data" makes all your other claims highly suspect. Any Princeton Review data should be current, not two years out of date. And even Princeton Review should not be treated as gospel. It is simply one rating service's impression of the school. Other rating services -- such as Kaplan or Fiske or whatever -- might differ. Freshman dropping out is quite common, especially at large public universities. 1 in 8 quitting during their freshman year is probably a plus instead of a minus. I could easily imagine more freshman dropping out, not because the school was bad or their academic preparation was inadequate, but because they were homesick, missed their boyfriend/girlfriend, etc. UC campuses are not "local" in the way that state colleges and community colleges tend to be -- many students come from far away. So what you incorrectly call a high drop out rate is another one of your red-herrings, utterly irrelevant to the quality of the school. Your comparison of UCR to other UC schools (to the effect that it is the "worst" UC school in regard to various things) is also irrelevant cherry picking. UC is a highly regarded institution, and being the "worst" UC still puts you in pretty select company. There is no reason, other than spite, to emphasize UCR's lesser status in the UC system. You can convey that lesser status simply by giving the relevant data, without comment on its comparative significance, and leave it at that. The same goes for the need for remediation. When I went to UC Berkeley back in 70s, most students had to take "Subject A" -- remedial English -- before enrolling in the required English 1A and 1B. No one thought Berkeley was a lesser school, or its students dumb, because so many students had to take Subject A. As for college level math, the majority of college and university students -- even at elite universities -- do not take calculus or advanced mathematics beyond calculus. Psych majors (the most popular major) are not required to take it; other majors in the humanities and social sciences generally do not require it. If your standard of readiness for college is plunging into calculus the minute you matriculate, the only schools that would fully satisfy your arrogant requirement that students not need remediation would be MIT and Cal Tech. It is obvious that you have simply cobbled together everything negative you could find about UCR and put it into your article, while disregarding the school's positive aspects. That's what people here have been pointing out to you. Your refusal to listen does not alter the fact that what you are being told by us is true. starkt 15:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Starkt. You seem to be new to Wikipedia, and I want to welcome you to the discussion. First and foremost, while you seem very enthusiastic, I want you to be aware that we are attempting to maintain a civil conversation here. One of the most important things you can do is assume good faith, as dictated by WP:AGF as well as a recent WP arbitrator direction to all editors. For instance, when you write things like "it is obvious that you have simply cobbled everything negative you could find about UCR and it put it in your article," it is not acceptable here. Furthermore, when you accuse people of engagine in "irrelevant cherry picking," your tone can be regarded as uncivil. I'd be happy to address many of your concerns (most of which have already been addressed already if you read the archives), provided your abide by these policies. Also, when your last line states "your refusal to listen does not alter the fact that what you are being told by 'us is true," which implies that you are actually another editor here. However, your records show that you are a NEW editor to this article as of TODAY. Are you, by chance, a sockpuppet account? Thanks. UCRGrad 16:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, UCRGrad. Thank you for your welcome. First, good faith is evidenced by deeds, not by claims that one is acting in good faith. Second, one should never assume anything, other than logically indubitable propositions such as, "If A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C". Now, you tell me that a recent WP arbitrator direction commands editors to assume something that ought not to be assumed. If true, that is unfortunate, because it throws up a procedural roadblock to intellectually credible discourse and an intellectually credible resolution of the issues now being considered. I will abide by any such directive once I see it. In the meantime, I will amend my statement. Instead of "It is obvious that you have simply cobbled together everything negative that you could find about UCR and put it in your article," it should now be understood as, "It appears that you have simply cobbled together everything negative that you could find about UCR and put it in your article." You also say that my tone can be regarded as uncivil, and you use the example of my accusing people of engaging in "irrelevant cherry picking". But what if those people are, in fact, engaging in irrelevant cherry picking? Is it uncivil to say so? I don't think so. The fact that I am a new editor does not negate the fact that I am another editor here, so your "implies" followed by "however" strikes me as beside the point. You ask me if I am a "sockpuppet account"? What is that? And what are the implications of that question in terms of the civility that you demand of others? Thanks. starkt 10:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am going to try to address here that you still haven't addressed my question earlier regarding how you are justifing the inclusion of context here, with this quote, after saying earlier you are against including context as a way of explaining, or "excusing," the very statistics you are currently citing. I would be interested in hearing IB's rationale for including this quote also, but you seem far more invested in defending it for some reason.

I have no idea what you just asked. Can you please rephrase it? Thanks. 71.198.58.193 04:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding accusations of plagarism, there is a word "parody," I think you should look up in a dictionary.--Amerique 19:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Amerique, you are free to address the compelling arguments I have made as to why WHS's work constituted plagiarism, and how plagiarism can co-exist with parody. However, if you are going to insult me, by implying that I do not know what the word "parody means," and telling me to "look it up" in the dictionary, then I am not convinced that you are actually attempting to engage in a rational discussion. I'll point out that I find it a bit hypocritical that on your advocacy page, you claim that *I* have been uncivil, then you turn around and make the snide remark above. I wonder if your advocate has seen this? UCRGrad 04:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, your response to WHS's parody of your writing style didn't make it clear that you had identified exactly what was going on. Indeed, your response to my earlier statement here, now immediately following this one, suggests that you may have thought I plagarised your remarks, if a parody can even qualify as plagarism in a space where all contributions are GFDL-licensed. Belltower's advocate has advised that I retract that earlier statement, however as it seems to have lead to this huge back and forth discussion between you and WHS, which is now over, I don't see the point of that now. However, I do apologise if your pride was at all offended by what was only intended as a good-will suggestion. [Amerique]

If you feel that my respond to WHS's alleged parody "didn't make it clear that [I] had identified exactly what was going on," so you say, then I again welcome you to address the compelling arguments I have made as to specifically why WHS's work constituted plagiarism (including side-by-side quotes), and how plagiarism can co-exist with plagiarism. Since you are supposedly an expert in Information Science, you should also be well aware that the GDFL licensure entitles free-use with respect to copyright, but specifically preserves the right of an author to be credited for his/her work, and does NOT permit theft of words and ideas without proper attribution. My good-will suggestion to you, would be to read the text of the GFDL, since I believe it is relevant to your area of your expertise. UCRGrad 04:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, WHS was not reproducing your text elsewhere in an attempt to pass it off as his own. Indeed, being familiar with your arguments, I don't see why anyone rational would want to do that. WHS instead cooked up your rhetoric and served it right back at you, which for you must have read as a Naked Lunch if there ever was one. That uncivil WHS--Amerique 20:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm still interested in listening if you want to try reconciling your earlier point of view saying, basically, "no explanitory context for factual information/statistics, as this provides excuses for, etc." and your current point of view saying, basically, "UCR is an abomination" offers great contextual relevance for the aformentioned statistics. I don't know if IB has ever provided his own rationale for including this information, beyond agreeing with yours, but i am interested in what he might have to say also. I am by no means obligating you or IB to respond, however, if you think I might be offending you in any way.--Amerique 20:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, your argument is unclear to me. I have not stated that the "abomination to higher education" quote provides an "explanatory context for factual information." In fact, the existence of the quote, as alluded to in the article, constitutes an additional fact that COMPLIMENTS other factual information. UCRGrad 04:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me put it this way, would you now oppose the fleshing out of US News/PR data with complimentary contextual information from other authoritative sources?--Amerique 20:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an entire subsection of this talk page dedicated to your overt plagiarism so far. Included are specific comparison quotes between the language I used and the "alarmingly similar" language you used to construct your counterarguments. Plagiarism will NOT be tolerated here or elsewhere on WP. UCRGrad 23:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There has been a lot of complaining about the desired removal of the quote that reads: [WHS, plagiarizing much of my text]

"In a survey by StudentsReview.com, 52% of respondents said they would not attend UC Riverside again if given that chance, with one respondent calling the university "an abomination to higher education."

Two individuals have attempted to make a variety of arguments, in a seemingly desperate attempt to argue that the line should remain. So far, I have not read a SINGLY good reason why it belongs. The fact of the matter is: [WHS, plagiariazing much of my text]

My original statement is true, but the reverse (which you have stated above is not.) UCRGrad 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How is mine not true? --WHS 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

- PR ranks UCR as one of the best schools in the west. - PR ranks UCR as one of "America's best value colleges".

I will stipulate the above two for now. UCRGrad 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

- UCR is ranked in the top tier of universities at 85th in the country by USNews.

Wrong. There are 248 national universities - therefore, the top "tier" is the top 83 schools. UCR is #85, and therefore belongs to the SECOND tier. UCRGrad 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to address this earlier but USNews has UCR under the top schools category on their site. --WHS 01:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

- Someone has forgotten about Merced when consistently calling UCR the WORST.

Wrong. US News provides rankings for schools, and as of now, Merced is not ranked. We do not know where UC Merced stands, but what we do know what is published - and all of the statistics about UCR being "ranked last" in various categories is true as of today, 2006. UCRGrad 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Perhaps there is a reason why Merced isn't ranked, such as it not being established enough? UCR is, therefore it is higher. --WHS 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Merced isn't ranked because it is too new - however, when rankings are published, we don't know where it will lie relative to UCR. Therefore, we must default to the information that is available (as opposed to speculation). As it stands now, the statistics in ths article are correct, and UCR ranks lowest in the UC system in the categories already mentioned. UCRGrad 23:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Which means that you agree that it's unranked. As it is unranked as of the time, and UCR is, that by default means that UCR is higher. --WHS 01:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

- 85% of freshman remain.

Irrelevant. 1 in 8 freshmen leaving is extremely high for a major university. The freshmen retention rate is among the LOWEST in the UC system, and is a strong marker of student happiness and student success. UCRGrad 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant? It's the exact same information you posted. Oh, and "is a strong maker"? Haha. --WHS 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you already know that by "irrelevant," I was referring to your counterargument specifically (that 85% of freshmen remain), not to my statistics. UCRGrad 23:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What was my counterargument? All I said was that 85% of freshmen remain, except that it wasn't worded in a biased fashion as yours was. --WHS 01:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

- The university offers classes for those initally unable to read and write and the preferred level.

Irrelevant. The fact is, these students become sophomores and they've JUST passed classes that "teach them how to read/write at the entering freshmen level." That says a lot about the caliber of the student body. Keep in mind, we're talking about OVER HALF of freshmen. UCRGrad 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Relevant. Or, is it irrelevant that the unversity takes into account the fact that not all freshmen are able to write at the college level and tries to adjust for it so they can be brought up to par? --WHS 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by irrelevant is that your counterargument, whether true or not, does not change the fact that over half of incoming freshmen cannot read, write, or do math at the college level, which says multitudes about the caliber of students and the level at which classes are taught at. UCRGrad 23:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because over half of incoming freshman can't read, write, etc. at the college level doesn't make what I said irrelevant. Those two items are able to exist together if you didn't realize. Also, you never explained why those facts were significant? Is this significantly higher or lower than other universities? --WHS 01:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

- GPA/SAT scores have far exceeded most of California and the nation.

Also irrelevant. The GPA/SAT scores at UCR are traditionally the LOWEST in the UC system, and in fact, are lower than at least one CalState. They're very low.

So, it's okay that we use data from USNews and PR that compares UCR to all universities, but when we want to do it in this case it's irrelevant? Okay. --WHS 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a better counterarguemt would be that UCR's GPA/SAT scores do NOT far exceed that of most CA universities...perhaps they are better than trade schools, culinary academies, art schools, and CalStates, but these comparisons are IRRELEVANT. For a national university, it has some of the LOWEST GPA/SAT scores in California. Therefore, on a factual basis, your counterargument is incorrect. UCRGrad 23:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So, CSUs aren't universities now? And they aren't national universities? That's news to me. --WHS 01:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

- Only 15% are unhappy enough with the school to leave

Again, to be unhappy enough to drop out or transfer is extremely unhappy. 15% is very high. We can predict that AT LEAST 15% of students are unhappy (many, not transferring or dropping out). Remember, UCR was in the TOP 20 in the NATION for unhappy students. UCRGrad 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And how are you sure that all 15% that dropped out was because they were unhappy? Some may have had to leave for other reasons as far as we know. Saying that it is a direct result of unhappiness is speculation on your part. --WHS 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with WHS. There are many, many reasons why students drop out of college. Did Bill Gates drop out of Harvard because it's a lousy school that made him unhappy? Personally, I think the lower socioeconomic status of UCR students compared to other UC schools must play a big role in dropout rates, especially these days, with cuts in state and federal student aid. It's not all about unhappiness; that's just a personal theory with no place in an encyclopedic article. szyslak (t, c, e) 10:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are many reasons why students drop out. But if Bill Gates were truly happy at Harvard, he obviously wouldn't have left. Even in his case, he was not truly happy at his school (probably because he had "better ideas" for what he would do with his life). It doesn't necessarily mean Harvard is a bad school...but the drop-out rate does correlate with student happiness. Regardless of WHY students drop out, this high rate is still alarming, and should be taken as just another reason (out of many) why the abomination quote is at least appropriate. UCRGrad 23:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the correlation you cited between the abomination quote and the retention rate. Also, students may drop out because of a multitude of reasons, not all relating to unhappiness. For example, they are no longer to afford tuition (as Syzslak argued), etc. --WHS 01:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

- Many students would return to UCR if given the choice.

But most would not (>50%). UCRGrad 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

But many would. --WHS 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "many students" would return, but it doesn't change the fact that MOST would not. And the fact that most would not return says a lot about student satisfaction with their education and college experience. UCRGrad 23:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Most would, based on the review at one website. I don't believe the website accounts for the opinion of all UCR alumni. --WHS 01:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The list goes on and on and on. Is it surprising that a person who is seeking to case the university in an extremely negative light supports the "an abomination to higher education" quote? Not really. Much BETTER has been written about the school on studentsreview.com - this one happens to be biased and unfair. It would be unfair to select other quotes from the site that make the school sound worse than the above evidence suggests. [WHS, plagiarizing much of my text]

Given that I have invalidated your counterarguments with regard to evidence, the above corruption of my personal argument is also invalidated. Nice try, though. UCRGrad 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well not that I've invalidated your argument with regard to evidence, everything you have just said no longer applies. Nice try, though. --WHS 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

(More plagiarism of my words and ideas.) UCRGrad 23:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, the "abomination" quote doesn't reflect the above statistics well.

The abomination quote actually reflects the above statistics very well. As you can see, a simple scrutiny of your counterargument easily substantiates my original claim.

It doesn't reflectg it well at all. I've just shown by analyzing your counterargument that it is baseless. --WHS 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It matches the textual context of the two preceding paragaphs on Admissions and "Rankings and Distinctions" due to the bias found in them. Therefore, the quote is INCONSISTENT with the published evidence about the university, it is IN CONTEXT with the prior two paragraphs because of the bias, and it reflects an UNLIKELY opinion held by many students.

So you DO agree that the quote matches the textual context of the two preceding paragraphs, irrespective of your "perceived" bias? ...or are you suggesting that the quote be competely out-of-place and inconsistent?? UCRGrad 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on this point, but only because the article is so biased in one direction. --WHS 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely no logical and rational reason for why the quote belongs. It's contributions like that that really detract from the quality of the text. --WHS 03:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

:Just to let you know, it is considered poor-form and plagiarism to take someone's text and change a few words here and there to have an opposite meaning. Not only does it not constitute a valid form of counterargument, it also constitutes incorporating someone else's work as your own, and this is not acceptable anywhere in scholarly work or dialogue. UCRGrad 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the bold formatting comes after the colons. Anyway, I was merely trying to illustrate how you've taken neutral information and spun in negatively by doing just the opposite. I'm sorry you're offended by this. But please, try to think of it as a parody of yours. --WHS 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

DEAR WHS: Well thanks for the information, I'm really glad to see that you are well educated in the areas of school rankings. Unfortunately none of what you said really addressed UCRGrad's above comments, they only added irrelevant information. The reason why I put this quotation in was because I thought it was consistent and in context specifically with the statistic of 52%. A representative quotation for a statistic- pure and simple. The context of the sentence is MOST relevant here, along with the other stuff mentioned. Your attempt to mirror UCRGrad reasoning has landed you into some logically fallacies but I will address that later because I really have to go to bed now. IF you still have problems, we can deal w/ this in the morning. Laters Insert-Belltower 04:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Explain to me how it didn't address what UCRGrad said? I countered every single point. I'll agree that the context that the quote is in is appropriate, but for all the wrong reasons. And point out to me where my logical fallacies are? When you wake up that is. Laters. :) --WHS 04:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You're "responded" to every single point, but you haven't really "countered" any of them. There's a difference between typing a response and providing a valid counterargument. Keep in mind that your acts of plagiarism don't help your case much either. UCRGrad 23:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue that you've done the same thing you just accused me of. Also, repeatedly falsely accusing someone of something isn't civil. I've already advised you to report me if you genuinely feel it's plagiarism. If an admin agrees that I've plagiarized you, I'll admit it and issue you an apology for it as well as adhere to any punishment administered to me. --WHS 01:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you admit it only if an admin agrees? You either believe that it's true or it's not. Insert-Belltower 14:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it's true, but I will readily admit I was wrong if an admin agrees with you and UCRGrad since one would likely be a neutral third party. In any case, advocates are currently reviewing the matter so I suggest we wait for their opinions on it.--WHS 05:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk about "much ado about nothing"! There is no plagiarism here, and even if there were, this is a discussion page, not an article. Making accusations of "plagiarism" in this context is silly. starkt 15:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Alert: Plagiarism by WHS

It has come to my attention that WHS has attempted to pass on MY ideas and arguments as his own. In some cases, he attempts to use quotation marks, but in most cases, there is just blatant "lifting" of strings of words that I've written - and they are passed off as HIS own ideas. Plagiarism is an egregious misconduct in any scholarly work, and it is especially abominable here on Wikipedia.

I have provided the following examples of WHS taking MY ideas and MY work, changing a few words around, and publishing them on WP discussions as HIS ideas and HIS original work.

Me: "There has been a lot of complaining about a sentence that reads..."

WHS: "There has been a lot of complaining about the desired removal of the quote that reads..."

Me: It would be unfair to select other quotes from the site that make the school sound worse than the above evidence suggests

WHS: It would be unfair to select other quotes from the site that make the school sound worse than the above evidence suggests [word-for-word plagiarism]

Me: "So far, I have not read a SINGLE good reason why it does not belong"

WHS: So far, I have not read a SINGLY good reason why it belongs"

Note: The fact that the word "SINGLE" was changed to "SINGLY" indicates that WHS did not just cut and paste, he actually knowingly re-typed and plagiarized my work, passing it off as his own argument (when the original thoughts and ideas were MINE).

I actually did copy and paste. I just accidentally highlighted the E and pushed another key. Typo, it happens. Something someone doesn't understand. --WHS 05:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Me: There is absolutely no logical and rational reason for why the quote does not belong...It's contributions like that that really add to the quality of the text.

WHS: There is absolutely no logical and rational reason for why the quote belongs. It's contributions like that that really detract from the quality of the text.

The list continues. It is patently obvious that WHS has take original IDEAS and TEXT that did not belong to him, made minor changes (if any), and passed them off as HIS OWN original arguments on the WP discussion pages. Plagiarism is absolutely unacceptable, as Wikipedia is a scholarly work. It should not be tolerated from ANY party, and I expect an apology from WHS as soon as possible.

Do you know what plagiarism is? "An unacknowledged use of words, ideas, information, research, or findings not one's own, taken from any source is plagiarism only if a person is claiming personal credit for originality." When did I ever claim credit for originality? If you truly feel it's plagiarism, then go ahead and report it, but it doesn't take much common sense to see that I've done it merely to parody your argument. However, I apologize for doing this and will refrain from doing so in the future. --WHS 04:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism is "1: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work 2: the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own" (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition). If you do not understand the concept of PLAGIARISM, one of the most egregious offenses in scholarly writing, you have absolutely no business being an editor here. WP does NOT need plagiarists, and it only hurts articles and the intelligent discussion here. There is a fine line between "parody" and "plagiarism"...and you are nowhere close to it. The equivalent of "I didn't know any better" is NEVER an acceptable excuse. Please let me kindly suggest that you learn more about what plagiarism, because it will benefit you on WP as well as elsewhere in life (assuming you are actually engaged in something academic/scholarly). UCRGrad 05:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I never presented it as my own work. I clearly intended it to be a copy of yours. Anyway, see what I wrote below.--WHS 05:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, MY ideas and MY words were presented as YOUR own work when you:

a) copied them verbatim or made only minor changes

b) failed to use quotation marks

c) failed to attribute these arguments to ME

d) attempted to use them as YOUR OWN arguments

It really doesn't matter that you thought you attempting to "parody" my work. In fact, it is very serious that you "cleary intended it to be a copy of [mine]," as you wrote above. To reiterate, if you do not understand the concept of PLAGIARISM, one of the most egregious offenses in scholarly writing, you have absolutely no business being an editor here. UCRGrad 12:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand the concept of plagiarism. I didn't copy your ideas. If I did, you would have agreed with everything I wrote. I copied your words, but again, they weren't presented as my own. You told me to stop repeating the same arguments over and over when they have been addressed, perhaps you could heed your own advice.--WHS 13:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am appalled - not only by your overt act of plagiarism, but also by your complete lack of insight into your transgression. Let me break it down into simpler terms. Plagiarism requires that you a) copy someone's words or ideas and b) present them as your own work. Nothing complicated about it.

a) When you presented counter-arguments that contained large portions of MY writing (see above examples), that constituted COPYING my WORDS. The fact that these were my original ideas, you also COPIED my IDEAS.

b) When you presented these counter-arguments, containing my WORDS and IDEAS, on Wikipedia, and you 1) failed to use quotation marks for a direct quote and 2) failed to attribute the WORDS of your counterargument to ME (the original author), and 3) failed to attribute the IDEAS behind your counterargument to ME (the original officer), this was the equivalent of presenting them as your own work.

You have satisfied all the elements of "plagiarism." What do you have to say for yourself? UCRGrad 22:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What do I have to say for myself? I'd say that you apparently don't understand what plagiarism is. You're obviously reaching with your plagiarism accusations, and it is bad faith to accuse someone of doing something that they clearly aren't. I'll forgive your ignorance though. Just for future reference, here's the definition of parody from dictionary.com:

I have provided several examples for others to compare my work and your work, in order to verify that you indeed stole my words and ideas and used them as your own counterarguments. I have also provided very clear explanations of how plagiarism was committed. Therefore, the "assume good faith" rule does not apply. It is now factual that you committed plagiarism. "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply AFTER a criminal is CONVICTED in a court of law. Sorry! UCRGrad 23:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule.

I'm not going to suggest that you shouldn't contribute to Wikipedia anymore just because you don't understand the difference between the two (by the way, it's not civil to tell others that they should no longer contribute), but hopefully you will work on the difference on your own.--WHS 22:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I know what "parody" is. Regardless of whether or not you your work was parody (which I do not stipulate), it DOES NOT change the fact that your committed gross plagiarism of my WORDS and IDEAS. Parody does NOT permit plagiarism. Please note also that you have MET CRITERIA for the definition of plagiarism. You can make excuses all you want, and convince yourself that you haven't committed academic dishonesty, but it doesn't change the fact that you writing on WP borrowed words and ideas from ME and was not properly attributed. UCRGrad 23:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to respond to any comments directed towards me with a condescending tone of voice. If you would like me to reply, please rephrase your statement without the "listen" and accusations. Thanks. --WHS 00:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no condescension intended. Here's the condensed version: "Regardless of whether or not you your work was parody (which I do not stipulate), it DOES NOT change the fact that you committed gross plagiarism of my WORDS and IDEAS. Parody does NOT permit plagiarism. Please note also that you have MET CRITERIA for the definition of plagiarism." Do you understand now? Thanks. UCRGrad 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not it was intended, it still happened. Also, I will not reply to this one either. "Do you understand now?" implies that I am slow to understand things. I'll have to ask you to rephrase this again, with just the part in the quotations. --WHS 00:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you choose to respond does not change the fact that Regardless of whether or not you your work was parody (which I do not stipulate), it DOES NOT change the fact that you committed gross plagiarism of my WORDS and IDEAS. Parody does NOT permit plagiarism. Please note also that you have MET CRITERIA for the definition of plagiarism." Given that your only counteargument now is that you are pretending to be offended (and even if you are not, you should not be), it's pretty clear that you are do not have a good defense for your actions. Honestly, it doesn't show a lot of character to argue that you did not commit plagiarism in the face of such overwhelming evidence. Just as an aside, if you did ANYTHING similar at UCSD, you would immediately receive an "F" in the course. If you don't believe me, feel free to run it by your academic dishonesty officer at your school. UCRGrad 01:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And why shouldn't I be offended if I'm being talked to in a condescending manner and being falsely accused of plagiarism? I've already explained multiple times how it is not plagiarism. I do understand why you're so intent on casting it as plagiarism since it was done to ridicule you, which I already apologized for. In anycase, you're making side arguments and need to readdress my points that I made in my parody of your writing. --WHS 01:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

:Tell you what. I will STIPULATE, for the sake of argument, that your work was done in "parody." HOWEVER, the fact that your arguments constituted parody, does NOT CHANGE THE FACT that you also, simultaneously, committed gross plagiarism of my WORDS and IDEAS. Parody does NOT excuse you of your responsibility to properly attribute WORDS and IDEAS that were written by someone else...and MY ideas and MY words were presented as YOUR own work when you:

a) copied them verbatim or made only minor changes

b) failed to use quotation marks

c) failed to attribute these arguments to ME

d) attempted to use them as YOUR OWN arguments UCRGrad 01:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, the bold formatting goes inside the colons and is bad netiquitte. But I'll address your points anyway, just for the sake of argument.

a. Copying them verbatim alone doesn't count as plagiarism, if you weren't aware. Especially when I was changing around many words to reflect the exact opposite of your ideas.

If you fail to use quotations marks or attribute properly, then verbatim copying IS, by definition, plagiarism. There's no way around this one. UCRGrad 01:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

b, c. I was assuming that people would be able to realize that it was obviously supposed to be a take on your writing since I posted my copy right underneath yours. I apologize for giving you too much credit.

Unfortunately, there is no provision in the definition of plagiarism for "I was assuming that people would be able to realize that I was obviously [using my] writing." You either properly attributed the words you copied, or you didn't. You didn't. Hence, plagiarism. UCRGrad 01:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

d. Perhaps this would be applicable if I had attempted to use your arguments as my own, but I did no such thing. --WHS 01:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So at 03:44 11 July 2006, when user "WHS" wrote, "There is absolutely no logical and rational reason for why the quote does not belong...It's contributions like that that really add to the quality of the text," who's argument was that? Did somebody else use your account? Because according to the archives, user "WHS" wrote that line on the TALK page of this article. I'm not sure who else could have made that argument, if it wasn't somebody else using your Wikipedia account UCRGrad 01:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes there was one instance when I copied you verbatim, but it's clear that the argument wasn't same to yours, or at least it would be if you would stop taking things out of context. Also, your responses to mine both are reaching and fail to address anything I mentioned, and repeating them again will not change that. Again, I aplogize for giving you too much credit since you still fail to realize that by posting my copy directly under yours, you would be able to see that it was intended to be a parody. --WHS 01:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So you now admit that you copied me verbatim - so remind me again how this is NOT plagiarism? And I have made a good faith effort to respond to ALL of your arguments - which ones did you think I missed? THanks. UCRGrad 02:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't. Remember, a caveat to the plagiarism rule is that it must be presented as ones own work, which I didn't (something I have had to repeat multiple times). Also, your points don't address mine as they all come under that same stipulation that I presented the work as my own, and again, I grow tired of repeating my response to this. --WHS 02:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already addressed this. "Presenting work as your own" has two components: 1) work was presented and 2) you took credit for it. So by typing/copying/etc. your response on the TALK page and clicking the "save page" button, you have effectively PRESENTED your work. By submitting your response under your account, you have taken credit for your submission. If you've stolen exact phrases from me and fail to use quotation marks and give me credit, you have failed in your duty to give credit to anyone else. Therefore, 2) is satisfied. This isn't a subtle case of plagiarism, you know - it's frankly quite obvious to any bystander, given the evidence. UCRGrad 06:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, no matter how many times you say that you've "addressed this", it doesn't change the fact that you really haven't. In any case, I agree that it isn't a subtle case of plagiarism, the reason for that being it isn't plagiarism at all. And, it apparently wasn't "frankly quite obvious to any bystander", judging from the fact that Amerique didn't feel it was plagiarism, nor did Szyslak, ElKevbo, Aeon, or Steve Caruso, the last two being neutral parties mind you. --WHS 14:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. WHS-- You could have used UCRGrad's words and properly cited them, but you didn't. You don't have a case here. Nevertheless, your hostility is becoming increasingly transparent by your plariagism and rude language. I would suggest that you just admit the you were wrong, apologize and take a break from editing this article. It's obviously is not good for your health. Have a nice day. Insert-Belltower 23:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Insert-Belltower-- (see, this is also what you would call a parody) I already aplogized for parodying his work. And also, I wouldn't expect you to think I have a case since you share UCRGrad's sentiments on every single matter. Also, if I want to know what is and isn't good for my health, I'll go see my doctor. Thanks and have a nice day as well. --WHS 00:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't share UCRGrad's opinions on every matter- go back a look at the archive for this TALK page.Insert-Belltower 14:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no plagiarism here. And even if there were plagiarism, who cares? This is a discussion page, not an article. starkt 15:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation?

This is addressed to UCRGrad, but may also apply to Insert-Belltower. It's clear to everyone that both of us are acting unciviliy, though admittedly probably me more than you as of late. I'm not expecting one in return, but I'm offering you my apologies for my actions. Still, despite my apology, it's more than apparent that neither of us agree with each other, and heated debates are likely to occur again.

Come to think of it, of the people on your side, only your responses have struck me as "uncivil." For instance, szyslck (sp?) read arguments from myself and I-B, and proposed a change that satisfied both of our requirements. It took him 5 minutes and less than a paragraph because he/she was not argumentative and provided a reasonable solution that neither I-B or I could argue against. Rather than apologize, it would be helpful if you took the time to a) acknowledge when you are wrong (when you are), b) avoid being argumentative (i.e. disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing), and c) really addressing the countearguments of others (including avoidance of personal attacks). It's not of I-B and I "choosing" to agree with you or not. If you truly have good reasoning and arguments, we have no choice but to agree. UCRGrad

Since you think that Szyslak's edit was so easy to come to (And I appreciate Syzslak for his contribution), why didn't you just do it yourself instead of engaging in edit warring with me? Mind you, I revised my version to try to reach a compromise, you steadfastly stuck to yours. Also, you've accused multiple people of being uncivil, not just me. I'm not disagreeing that I have been uncivil, I have. I'm just saying that you have as well. As for the apology, I did it at your request. --WHS 13:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, I'm suggesting informal mediation again, as others have before me. The prior steps in dispute resolution (Avoidance, Talking, etc.) have been tried and it's obvious they're not working. I realize that you'll just say that you (and I-B) have clearly refuted my arguments, blah blah blah, but I could say the same in response. Mediation is one of the few dispute resolution procedures that we haven't yet tried, so what do you say? --WHS 05:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have already stated a multitude of reasons why mediation would not be helpful or beneficial to my side. If you disagree or wish to convince me otherwise, I encourage you to dig through the archives and address the points I have made previously. In fact, if there is any 3rd-party intervention required here, it should be sanctions against your personal attacks and your over plagiarism (see above). That's my standpoint. I'll see what I-B thinks. UCRGrad 13:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you think the third party sanctions will take care of my personal attacks and supposed plagiarism, then why not do it? Can't say I didn't try.--WHS 13:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, WHS has hereby admitted that he engages in "personal attacks," and shows no intention of stopping. UCRGrad 23:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I show no intention of stopping? I apologized for my personal attacks, something that you would be well suited to do, not that I'm exepcting you to however. --WHS 00:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Now you are threatening personal attacks if there is no mediation. What sort of reasoning is that? That is about as logical as David Hasselhoff going UCR! With your plagiarism of UCRGrad's comments, it now becomes increasing clear you are not interested in the truth and making the UCR article as good as it can be. Maybe if would be best if you take some time of WIKI and come back when you are refreshed and not so hotheaded. Insert-Belltower 14:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Where did I threaten a personal attack? *rolls eyes*--WHS 14:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You are implying that the only mediation with take care of your personal attacks. If no mediation, then personal attacks continue. That's why I suggested that you take some chill time and come back when you are refreshed. Get a coffee or a soda or something. The TALK page doesn't have to be a constant flame war (to the flame!).Insert-Belltower 14:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I never implied that. I simply said that if UCRGrad felt that my actions were violations of Wikipedia rules, and that Mediation should be used to sanction my actions if nothing else, then why don't we do it? And by the way, I took a week off the article. It's one of the dispute resolution procedures. Perhaps you or UCRGrad should try it as well? --WHS 21:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I will assume good faith on this now, but given your recent plariagism and uncivil remarks I doubted you. As far as a vacation, I was thinking of going to Mrytle Beach. Have to been there? Insert-Belltower 23:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no plagiarism, but I can understand if I came off harshly due to my previous uncivil remarks which I've already apologized for (something others ::ahem:: haven't done). But as far as Myrtle Beach goes, let me direct you to this Wikipedia article that is well written, informative, and most importantly, unbiased. --WHS 00:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

How can you say there was "no plagiarism" when there is INDISPUTABLE evidence written above? UCRGrad 00:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your evidence is only indisputable to someone who doesn't understand the concept of plagiarism, as already explained above. Also, there is no need to capitalize entire words without reason. I'm not sure if you're aware, but in the online world it's all caps are considered yelling which is bad etiquitte. Refrain from doing this in the future if you would like me to reply to your comments. The same applies for bold formatting. --WHS 00:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You know what's considered bad etiquette? Plagiarism. UCRGrad 02:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's a good thing that no one has done it. And incidentally, I already apologized for parodying your work, so it would do us all good for you to drop the matter and focus on the aspects of the article itself.--WHS 02:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize for "parodying my work." Parody is perfectly acceptable, as long as it does not violate any other rules (i.e. civility), or in this case, that of plagiarism. Now even in the face of overwhelming evidence here (i.e. several of your plagiarized statements juxtaposed with mine), you STILL refuse to back down and concede the point. This has been the case since you began editing again, and it is clear that even in the face of irrefutable evidence, you are unwilling to be reasonable. Clearly, if any neutral third-party were to evaluate this discussion, it would not be looked upon favorably for your camp. UCRGrad 02:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you insist. --WHS 02:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging list of CHASS departments

"It has been suggested that UC Riverside College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences be merged into this article or section," per the tag that was placed here. No compelling reason or explanation has been offered for why this should be done. I definitely think it is important to mention that UCR has a CHASS department. It might also be pertinent to mention that it is the largest college of the university. However, to list all of its sub-departments would be useless, because it out of consistency, we sould have to list all the sub-departments of all the other colleges. That would be cumbersome, a waste of space, and not provide any information that wasn't easily obtainable from the UCR website. UCRGrad 14:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand UCRGrad's position

I was in Riverside on business yesterday. Out of curiosity (provoked by my reading of the discussions on this talk page), I drove through the campus. UCR is the ugliest university I have ever seen. Putting a college campus in the middle of a hot, barren desert (surrounded by mostly rocks and occasional brush) was an incredibly unwise move on the part of the UC Regents. Now I totally understand UCRGrad's position, though I still disagree with some of the things he/she has done with the article. --Coolcaesar 20:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, thanks for providing an update on your position. If you recall, three months ago on 04:11 6 April 2006, as part of arguments that the article violated NPOV standards, you wrote "I'll concede that my own bias may have something to do with the fact that I have never visited the Riverside, Merced, or San Francisco campuses." Today, you follow up with "Now I understand UCRGrad's position...UCR is the ugliest university I have ever seen...etc." I think it's important to note that 3 months ago, Coolcaesar, an otherwise neutral 3rd party with no affiliation or experience with UC Riverside, came across this article and his "gut impression" was that there was bias or an unfair characterization of the school. Now that this individual has actually SEEN the campus, he realizes that some of the relevant sections were actually fair and accurate!!! This just reinforces the argument I made previously, that in order to confidently conclude that this article is biased or unfairly weighted, one must first have sufficient familiarity with the university to begin with! Thus, many of the dissenting editors here, especially Amerique, who have ZERO affiliation or fundamental knowledge about UC Riverside, are likely to share the same initial opinions that Coolcaesar did. I am confident that if Coolcaesar spent more time at the school, evaluating the other relevant aspects mentioned in the article, he would surely agree that the other portions of the text are fair and accurate as well. Thanks. UCRGrad 03:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Coolcaesar, would you mind filling out the UCR survey I developed? I'm trying to get multiple viewpoints registered on the article and would appreciate your insights.--Amerique 22:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

UCR and the city of Riverside are NOT the desert, nor are they even close to it. Anyone who knows anything about the different types of deserts, what they look like, their weather and the animals and plants that live and grow there, can easily see this. I encourage this person to get out a little and learn about things like this before opening their mouth and saying completely ignorant things. I attend UCI and it's no greener than UCR's campus... and it's five miles from the Pacific. Last I checked... whether or not a school is near an ocean is not an indicator of... anything of any importance. Really. Not to mention that just six miles east of Irvine and Newport Beach, there is a chain of mountains which have NO greenery on them. Drive around southern California for a bit and you'll see that most mountains do not have much greenery on them. What this has to do with UCR itself is nothing at all. Your post is illogical, incorrect and your ignorance shows through with your statements. With all due respect... if you have no clue what you're talking about, you should probably not say anything. 66.214.118.69 03:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I live in Moreno Valley (right next to Riverside). It's a desert. It used to be a lake, but it's a desert now. Get over it. Danny Lilithborne 03:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I lived in south Riverside for four years. It's not a desert. We're not talking about Moreno Valley, to begin with. Get over it. 66.214.118.69 03:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

And I've lived in Moreno Valley for over ten years. MV is RIGHT NEXT to Riverside, and people who live in MV tend to go to Riverside all the time for various things. My mother went to UCR. It's in a desert - the Inland Empire. It's got the weather of a desert, dry and hot. It has the landscape of a desert. I'm not sure how this in debate. Danny Lilithborne 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In case it's of interest to anyone here, I have a house with a swimming pool in Palm Springs. Otherwise, I live in San Diego. starkt 10:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Palm Springs, eh?Insert-Belltower 16:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position: I still feel the article is biased and negative in a number of ways that are against Wikipedia policy, as I have expressed above. But I would have no problem with any edits that indicate that UCR sits in a hot, bleak desert surrounded by ugly mountains that are nothing more than rock, dirt, and the occasional tumbleweed. The smog makes the scene only more unpleasant, of course. Even Irvine and Merced have gently rolling hills covered with grass. --Coolcaesar 19:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I also lived in San Bernardino for 8 years when I was a little kid. Yeah, it's a terrible city, we moved away. That's not the point, though. The point is... it's green. And so is Riverside. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but really, Riverside is not a desert. I moved around a lot and I also lived in the high desert for a couple years before I left for college. THAT is a desert. There may not be a lot of vegetation on the hills, but like I said, there isn't any of that on the hills near Irvine (I don't know about Merced). Really, there isn't. They are just as brown/yellow and have no vegetation. It's just west of Yorba Linda. If you don't know what I'm talking about, drive on the 241 and 261. That whole area is completely barren of vegetation. And no one calls that a desert. Lack of vegetation does not equal a desert. Irvine is green ON CAMPUS and in the closely surrounding areas, as is Riverside. But, when you go up in the hills... very similar scenery. I know, I live in Irvine right now. I also want to mention that I am not saying anything negative about a desert, to begin with. In reality, there are some deserts that have quite a bit of plant life and they're actually very beautiful. I'm simply stating facts. And I think there's a huge misunderstanding about what a desert actually is. 66.214.118.69 19:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The greenery in Riverside and San Bernardino (the cities, not the mountains surrouding them) is largely artificial. Danny Lilithborne 21:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see proof of that, because I don't buy it. And for another thing... if it was in a desert landscape, it would die, no matter how much it was watered. I tried to grow things in my backyard when I lived in one of the real desert areas in socal... no matter the shade or the watering or the fertilizing, it will still die unless it's a cottonwood tree. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. Again, this area is not a desert. 66.214.118.69 22:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate the discussion of the geography, climate, and flora of the area around and near UCR I am not really sure that I understand the point of this discussion and its relevance to this article. Is this really a bone of contention? If so, can't it be solved by looking at simple climate statistics such as annual rainfall, average temperature and humidity, etc. and comparing that to some agreeable measure of climate description? --ElKevbo 23:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, completely. 66.214.118.69 23:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should discuss this for at least as long as the alleged plagiarism was discussed. And I find it a much more interesting topic. Incidentally, pretty much anything seems to grow in Palm Springs if I water it enough. I have a lawn, three Italian cypress trees, roses, other flowers (the summer flowers and the winter flowers), two tangerine trees, a grapefruit tree, an olive tree, four lemon trees, and some other trees I haven't identified. These trees are in addition, of course, to the cactus and palm trees. You would not believe the size of the lemons and grapefruit that my trees produce without even all that much watering (I have a drip irrigation system for them.) My lemons are three times the size of lemons you buy in the grocery store, my grapefruit twice the size. And all of the fruit is incredibly delicious -- people pester me to give them more after I've already given them some. Harvest takes place in late March, early April. As for the beauty of the desert, yes, it is quite beautiful. In addition to the interesting wildlife -- bighorn sheep, roadrunners, some kind of rabbit and coyotes, we have a 10,000 foot-plus high mountain that comes right to the edge of town. At night, you can see the stars very clearly, and then the top of the mountain shrouded in mist with the moon peeking through. The tram light at the 8,000 foot level is so high that at first you think it is a star. starkt 08:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

IB's Justification for the Abomination Quote

I feel the quotation is a representative, concise and pity statement and is in context with the statistic that says ~50% students would not return to UCR if given choice. It would be less appropriate to put an extended quote because of the nature of this article. The statement serves to give the reader an insight that is beyond the simply raw numbers and statistics. In a sense, it brightens the article with life; a hint at the student perspective. Insert-Belltower 01:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Edit: modified stat. for clarity.Insert-Belltower 02:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks IB, for your coherent summary. I will get back to your comments here later.--Amerique 20:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The page has been cleaned up and updated considerably. Rather than focusing on too many positives or negatives, straight facts are made. The only things I need to fix are to re-do the references... I'm not sure how to make them their own references on the list and I don't have a lot of time, so if somesone could help me tomorrow or something I would greatly appreciate it. If the format is messed up a little, too... feel free to help me out. I'm new at this format. Thanks, guys.

P.S. Anything that UCRGrad posts in response to my edits WILL BE COMPLETELY IGNORED BY ME. For the following reasons:

1) Time and time again, he/she has shown they are not capable of conducting a mature and productive argument. 2) He/she is obviously already very biased and in set in their ways. 3) I don't have the time to spend on here (read: I have a life, too), nor do I have the patience or ability. And I don't feel like getting banned for something so incredibly dumb.

Anyone else who wants to discuss these issues, feel free. I feel the rest of you have a sense of maturity and I will gladly cooperate with that.

Thanks. 66.214.118.69 09:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

66.214.118.69, thank you for your contribution. Unfortunately, your mass deletion of the article is absolutely unacceptable. Your justifications for doing so are grossly inconsistent with findings by a recent arbitration (administrative) review. You have already been warned four times not to vandalize, twice by admins, and you've been temporarily blocked at least twice by admins for vandalism. Your three points above are in direct violation with WP policy. 1) violates WP:AGF as well as a ruling by the arbitrators. 2) also violates WP:AGF. 3) violates the FIRST step of WP:dispute_resolution, which is "talk to the other parties involved." As you say, if you don't have enough time to discuss your changes or to add references, you should not be editing the article. A great deal of work has gone into making this a high-quality and informative piece - it is not up to you to undermine that work. UCRGrad 12:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I understand that anyone can edit a Wikipedia article. But you would think, from the above remarks by UCRGrad, that only UCRGrad can write and edit the article, and anything anyone else does is vandalism. As a matter of fact, I did edit this article the first time I saw it, two or three days ago, and it was quickly reverted back to the old version. I could, of course, revert back to my version. In fact, I understand that I am allowed to do this three times a day, 365 days a year. So far, I have decided not to take this approach, but there is no guarantee that I won't take it in the future. starkt 10:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so you were user 66.214.118.69 and "Starkt" is your login name? Thanks. UCRGrad 14:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty new to wikipedia and sometimes forget to login. However, I am not, and I have never been, user 66.214.118.69. Oh, and I'm still eager to find out what a "sockpuppet" is. starkt 08:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Starkt-- it is inappropriate that you threaten to break the 3RR.Insert-Belltower 16:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that he or she is threatening to "break" the 3RR. I do agree that it's perhaps not the best way to build collaboration but let's assume good faith in our newcomer. --ElKevbo 16:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, ElKevbo, Starkt did write: "In fact, I understand that I am allowed to [revert] three times a day, 365 days a year. So far, I have decided not to take this approach, but there is no guarantee that I won't take it in the future." That sounds like a threat to me. Starkt, if you were threatening to break the 3RR, can you clarify what you meant by this statement? Thanks. UCRGrad 16:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the 3 revert rule that you can revert 3 times in a 24 hour period, but no more? If so, then I don't see how my entertaining the idea of reverting (not yet threatening to revert) three times a day, 365 days a year, would be breaking the 3 revert rule. I don't even see how actually reverting three times a day, 365 days a year, would be breaking that rule. And I would add that others here can do the same. For example, if 6 editors each chose to revert 3 times a day, that would be 18 reverts a day without any rules being broken. starkt 08:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Starkt, like you, many of us have problems with the edits and policy violations that both UCRGrad and I-B have committed. However, even entertaining the thought of possibly reverting three times a day for every day in a given year is frowned upon and can be thought of as wikilawyering, as the spirit of the WP:3RR rule would obviously be broken. Also, since you asked, a WP:SOCK violation occurs when a single user has multiple accounts that are used to "create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block. ". --WHS 09:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not Starkt. And if you look in the edit history page, it is easy to see that anyone who makes any major edits besides ucrgrad has had their stuff reverted, regardless of how many people agree... which for most issues, most people on here disagree with ucrgrad. So, in conclusion, I will now revert the article back to the updated version. I encourage people besides ucrgrad to discuss it with me and by all means, if you find other updated articles from reliable sources, we can use those, too. 66.214.118.69 19:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is probably long past time to stop discussing and start reverting. starkt 08:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not UCRGrad but I think your changes were not justified here in on the TALK page. You removed a lot info that were written to improve the article. I think that it would best if you explain your actions first.Insert-Belltower 21:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing changes by 66.214.118.69

My changes are easily justified. Not only are they from the university of california website, which I know from years of experience, has the correct information on the uc schools, but they have been updated to the years for 2006 and 2007. The information that is now on this page is very much updated and from an accurate source... which, funnily enough... shows some very different numbers than sources like the princetonreview, which is notorious for being a skeptical source. I don't know if anyone accused you of being ucrgrad, but it wasn't me. I really don't care who is who, I am here to make sure this page stays accurate and I will continue to do so. I added quite a bit of new info that is much more important to the accuracy of this article.66.214.118.69 22:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Princeton Review is a verifiable source. The standard on Wikipedia is VERIFIABILITY, not TRUTH. Please refer to the official policy WP:verifiability. Any source that is in accordance with this policy is acceptable on Wikipedia, as long as other policies are not violated. UCRGrad 23:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please make your changes one at a time so we can address them if necessary. There are several items in your edit with which I take issue and have not been discussed. Additionally, you're reverting to an older version of the article and missing some important edits that have occured since then (such as the removal of the merge suggestion).

Go ahead and make your edits but please make them in such a way that we can help you, discuss the changes, and otherwise approach this in a collaborative and collegial manner. I'd suggest tackling the most non-controversial edits first such as the factual updates your mention above. And please be sure to include sources for your edits as necessary and appropriate. Please let us know if you need any help! --ElKevbo 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Change 1

Alright, change #1 is going to be on the admissions information. When you look at the page, you will see that there are new requirements for all uc schools for the fall of 2007. This is from the uc website, itself and I think we can all agree it is more accurate. 66.214.118.69 22:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear 66.214.118.69, I mentioned that I am not UCRGrad because you said that you wouldn't respond to him. Thank you ElKevbo for advising this newcomer to do this. I don't understand how the PR is an inrealiable source for data. Where is the information on this? Insert-Belltower 23:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

PR is unreliable because its information is different than the uc website. Therefore, I am disregarding it. Sorry, if I skipped over your post.

Guy, I don't mean to offend you, but though I am in disagreement with UCRG/IB on this and on many other issues regarding the phrasing of such information, I can't agree with your argument here that we shouldn't include information from sources other than UC websites. The PR "data" should be taken for what it is, but that does not mean it should not be included along with information from other diverse sources.--Amerique 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Change 2

Change #2 made in the recruitment and alumni section for several logical reasons.

1)The alumni donation site reference talks about UCI and not UCR. Therefore, that whole statement is incorrect.

The reference for alumni donation rates at UCR is US News and World Report. It clearly supports the facts in the article. UCRGrad 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

2)The assumption that home-schooled students were added to raise competition is not backed.

Yes it is. It's in the article used as a reference, that recruitment of home-schooled students was designed to attract qualified applicants. Please read it. UCRGrad 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

3)The assumption that most alumni are unhappy is not backed. One quote from an anonymous person (who we have no proof they even went to UCR) is not backed. 66.214.118.69 23:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The article does not state that "alumni are unhappy." Furthermore, the quote from the anonymous survey respondant has already been discussed thoroughly. Your one-line argument somehow doesn't supercede the recent discussion that spanned several pages. UCRGrad 23:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the quote has been discussed thoroughly. And it's pretty clear to me that the consensus is that it should be removed. --ElKevbo 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus is that it be removed. starkt 09:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to call you out here. PR is unreliable for unbiased information but the UC website isn't? Danny Lilithborne 23:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I gotta agree - you're gonna have to be a bit more specific in this assertion. I'm not sure it really matters anyway as "[WP:V|The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth]]." --ElKevbo 23:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear 66.214.118.69, You are leaving in information from the PR in your current editings. I don't understand this if the PR is indeed as you say biased. Why is the donation site invalid if it talks about UCI as well. I don't understand. 2 and 3 have already been discussed and are cited. Are we reading the same article here :). Insert-Belltower 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If 2 and 3 were cited, why were they not taken out? And I did take out the rest of the PR references (even the positives), in an effort to be fair because I agree with you that if it's coming out, it all needs to come out. 66.214.118.69 23:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the university's own statistics and information are the most reliable and verifiable. I have never known UC to lie about such things. starkt 09:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Change 3

Change #3 is made in the biomed program section. The sentence about the possible success/failure of biomed students is purely unbacked opinion, with no references in any way that actually discuss how these graduates are doing. This was put in solely to make ucr look bad for no justifiable reason.

I also removed the statement about the trailers and "basement" of the stats building. The underground floor of the stats building is clearly not a basement, but just another floor of the building. It is completely identical to all other floors, complete with an elevator and several nice little lecture halls. I took several biomed courses and the ONE course that was in the portable building is simply because new buildings are still under construction. Is that really a negative? No. It's only until the rest is built and it's only been for a few months.

Note: the underground floor of a building is commonly referred to as a "basement." The original statement in the article is a true statement, irrespective of your miscellaneous arguments here. UCRGrad 23:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that there is not another floor beneath that floor? And if so, how do you know? Have you seen the architectural drawings? starkt 09:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the site ONLY talks about UCI. As I said, UCR is not involved. And yes, the UC site is reliable. I'm still editing, give me time, please. 66.214.118.69 23:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the UC site is reliable. starkt 09:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Change 4

Change #4 took place in the section talking about the resignation of the chair of the english department. When I read the reference, it said nothing about lowering graduation standards. This statement was unbacked, so it has been removed. The reference clearly states that the reason for resignation was lack of funding in the english dept. and nothing more.

I also removed the statement about none of the grad schools being on the list. It is only worth mentioning if they are ON the list, and since they are not... stating they are not, is just throwing in a negative.

And yes, if the PR site shows different numbers than the UC site, it is incorrect.

66.214.118.69 23:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think is is very easy to understand why the uc site would be a more reliable source than the pr site, to begin with. Even if the numbers were the same... I would still recommend using the uc site. All uc schools are required to share their information with the uc regents, because they are all part of the same system. Therefore, the uc site would obviously have the most detailed and updated information on each school. It makes sense, it is a first-hand source. 66.214.118.69 23:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the bar for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Second, you are begging the question. It's entirely possible that UCR's numbers are wrong or that PR (or anyone else) could arrive at different numbers using different methodology. That doesn't make PR or UCR wrong - they simply arrived at different (but hopefully close) numbers. --ElKevbo 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's really that big of an issue, we can include both pr and the uc statements. As far as different methodology, we hae no way of answering that. I stated my reasoning for believing the uc site more than the pr site in my previous paragraph. I also think there might be confusion... this is the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA website. So there is no reason that numbers would be biased in UCR's favor. 66.214.118.69 00:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that UCR and the UC system do have some good (but unethical) reasons to misstate statistics. But that's not particularly relevant to this discussion.

I think that including both sets of numbers is the right way to handle this since we are supposed to (nor do we have access to the necessary resources even if we wanted to) judge the accuracy of the numbers from either source. Validity, not truth. There's nothing wrong with including both sets of numbers and simply noting that they differ from one another (and such a note may not even be necessary as a difference would be readily apparent). --ElKevbo 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, including both is the appropriate thing to do. starkt 09:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And once again, I encourage ucrgrad to not waste their time with me. All their statements will go unread and unresponded to. Thank you. 66.214.118.69 23:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that's unacceptable in Wikipedia. I understand and share your frustration with UCRGrad but ignoring him won't solve your disgareements with him nor is a collegial way to work with other editors. I respectfully ask that you reconsider your "policy" or I will be in the uncomfortable position of seeking your ban from this particular article. We can't get anything done if Wikipedia editors pick and choose which other editors they will listen to and work with and ignore all others. --ElKevbo 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are not going to response to UCRGrad's statements then why is it fair that anyone response to YOUR statements? Eh?? Insert-Belltower 23:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ElKevbo. Insert-Belltower 23:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 66.214.118.69 and don't see why his/her refusal to pay attention to UCRGrad should be a bannable offense. And the refusal to listen/respond/make counterarguments cuts both ways. I'm still waiting to find out what a "sockpuppet" is. And I am still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why any but a handful of elite universities should be expected to have Nobel prizewinners on the faculty, and why the failure of a university outside that small, elite handful to have Nobel prizewinners would be pointed out unless one were trying to portray that university in a negative light. starkt 09:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Change 5

Change #5. This was the removal of the 909 stigma. The sources included opinions from an author of the oc weekly and urbandictionary.com. Not only are these sites purely based on the opinions of the writer, with no numbers to validate them... but EVEN if they do have any sort of accuracy (which has not been proven with any kind of valid statistics), it does not reflect properly on the student body and faculty of UCR. Not everyone who has anything to do with the school is from that area. Nor is there any proof that the people of UCR act like said stereotype. As you can see, it is inappropriate for several reasons. And no one said you have to talk to me if you don't want to. I, however, have been much more civil about this process. 66.214.118.69 23:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I also want to thank elkevbo for organizing this section. :) 66.214.118.69 23:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Those mentioned sites qualify as reliable WIKI sources. The sources have been previously accepted as OKAY my the users on this TALK page.Insert-Belltower 00:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• By who? You and UCRGrad? Cuz I don't see anyone accepting UrbanDictionary as a source. Danny Lilithborne 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Danny Lilithborne. starkt 09:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is further proof that ucrgrad is not civil...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tifego/UCRG_notes

66.214.118.69 00:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Change 6

After reading the debate from all the sides, I propose that we remove the "UCR is an abomination to higher education" quote. I think it's VERY clear that everybody (with the exception of UCRGrad and IB) agrees that the quote is blatantly biased and is used as a swipe against UC Riverside. It's a patently offensive quote that is a blatant violation of the NPOV policy. Sorry UCRGrad and IB, majority rules! Teknosoul02 00:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you believe that the "majority rules" on this issue? How were you able to determine that the majority agrees with you, and for the correct reasons? UCRGrad 02:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you believe that majority rules? Why do you believe your reasons are correct on this issue? Danny Lilithborne 03:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Go for it! --ElKevbo 02:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Out it goes. starkt 09:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Finished

Due to removal of my work before the changes are discussed properly as I've asked several times over and reversion to outdated information from unreliable sources and sheer opinion and nothing more, when I have clearly put in updated links from credible sources, without even trying to solve things, I am forced to see that my efforts to be accurate are obviously a waste of my time and energy. It is unfortunate but the wikipedia page as it stands it filled with irrelevant, biased, ignorant and innacurate information about the university as a whole. Fortunately for any student looking into attending a university, they will never think of looking to wikipedia as a true educational source of information. I hope ucrgrad is pleased with his/her terrible job on this article... an obvious representation of their personal issues with themselves, instead of looking for the truth. Fact of the matter is that EVERY university, regardless of reputation, has students who fail. It can be upsetting and as a result, ucrgrad has used this page and several other outlets on the web to vent their personal issues. With this in mind, I will continue my graduate education at UCI's neuroscience program and finish my PhD, while working as a research associate. Let it be known that I was also accepted to John Hopkins' ICE program on a full-ride scholarship and turned it down, because UCI is a better research university, despite the opinions of ignorant people... just like the ignorant people who continue to look down on UCR as a result of rumors and biased sources. The cycle never ends and wikipedia has suffered a casualty because of it. I hope you're had fun wasting months of your life to be attached to your computer in an effort to make your feelings "known", ucrgrad. I hope you actually... passed your finals in June, with allllllll the time you've spent on here. No one of any importance will read it, anyway. Hahahahahahahahaha!

Goodbye! :D 66.214.118.69 00:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Best of luck in your studies. --ElKevbo 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

66.214.118.69, It's a good thing I'm not reviewing your manuscript.Insert-Belltower 00:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My first year research paper and oral report are already completed and have been reviewed and approved by faculty members of UCI for my second year of graduate study. My writing on the internet is considerably different than my writing for educational purposes, along with most other people. Thanks for assuming incorrectly, though!

I was talking about your Biochem Biophys Res Commun. paper. Insert-Belltower 00:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the discussion on the desert issue, I think it's safe to assume that no one in that section was going for that style of writing. That was not the point. And like I said, this is just wikipedia. It's not necessary. I do not understand, nor do I really care to understand your personal issue with informal discussion because it makes no sense. They are not the same thing, nor are they the same type of writing. 66.214.118.69 00:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for the good luck wishes, elkevbo. :) 66.214.118.69 00:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's too bad you're going, but best of luck in the future... Danny Lilithborne 00:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Yeah, I would help more but I really don't have the time to deal with this ucrgrad kid. I'm sure you all have better things to do as well. 66.214.118.69 00:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm glad that's over and done with. Just for the record, user 66.214.118.69 is the same person as 24.205.124.171 who visited the discussion around July 3 of this year. Both of these users boasted about being accepted to Johns Hopkins for neuroscience on a full scholarship, which is how we know. His antics as 24.205.125.171 resulted in a block on his account. A transcript of the previous interaction can be found in Archive 8 of the discussion. At any rate, everybody is welcome to make contributions to this article. However, it is just unacceptable to make mass deletions and to ignore the input of users in the TALK page. That definitely goes without saying. ElKevbo, I know that you disagree with some of my work, but I really do appreciate your objectivity in evaluating 66.214.118.69's actions here. UCRGrad 00:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You are quite silly and seem to have an inability to listen and comprehend massive paragraphs on this page, where I have had many discussions with other users. I listened to everyone on here with the exception of you, for the reasons I stated. Many people have a big problem with you and your immature behavior. I'm sure they will be relieved when you are banned... which is definitely a matter of when, not if. I broke down all my changes to the article after being asked to do so and I have cooperated. And you're right about something, for once... I am that user. And my boasting is solely in efforts to break your ignorant stereotypes about the students at UCR. Plenty of us have been successful and have had just as many opportunities in life as kids from other UC's because our school is just as good as the others. I suggest that you try to get over your petty issues, now... because it's going to make the real world a very difficult and unforgiving place for you, if you can't even handle the internet properly. Do yourself a favor and get off of the computer. :D 66.214.118.69 01:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinions, there are certain rules of conduct that users are expected to follow here in Wikipedia. For instance - WP:AGF, WP:civility, and WP:3rr come to mind. You have been blocked more times than any other editor of this article, you hide behind an IP address, you brag about your accomplishments, you believe the rules here don't apply to you, and you "choose" to ignore a user that you know has an opposing viewpoint. All of those actions are not exactly consistent with a "mature" individual, and in fact, perhaps provides 1st-hand proof of some of the facts you seek to erase about UC Riverside students and their graduates. UCRGrad 01:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the personal attacks that are starting to be thrown around, this is getting pretty off-topic. Please take this discussion elsewhere if you want to continue it. Thanks! --ElKevbo 01:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

UCRGrad, you're not exactly mitigating things by claiming that 66's actions provide "1st-hand proof of some of the facts you seek to erase about UC Riverside students and their graduates." Why are you even bothering to impugn UCR just b/c of this person's actions? teknosoul02 01:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have had two accounts, not at the same time. You, however, have been accused and are still being accused of sock-puppeting. With your apparent hatred towards UCR, I'm sure you have the will to make multiple accounts, I wouldn't put it below you, given your behavior.

I never said the rules don't apply to me, nor have I acted in a way that suggests that. If you can't handle someone who doesn't agree with you... get off of the internet.

I chose to ignore you, NOT because we disagree. There are several other users that have different opinions than I do and yet, we get along and we can communicate in a mature fashion.

I said things about your character, only AFTER you personally insulted me and others, in the past. You've had this coming for awhile.

You are the only user here that everyone is having problems with. And my blocking was because of a 3 revert rule that I was not aware of with my first account. It was NOT because of arguments or immaturity. Granted, I might be banned because of my argument with you, now. But, like I said, you started the problems and you have this coming.

These statements show, once again, that you are the only user who has maturity issues. If everyone else can be civil and is annoyed with you... then it's YOU who has the problem, not us. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, kiddo.

And even your OBVIOUS immaturity is NOT a reflection of your education. UCR is a college, not a baby-sitting service. It is designed to teach intelligent young adults and NOT to deal with their personal immaturities. Your arguments hold absolutely no ground and they make no logical sense.

66.214.118.69 01:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Best of luck at UC Irvine in the department of neuroscience. UCRGrad 02:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

66.214.118.69, I certainly appreciate all the efforts you made to make this article unbiased and NPOV. I understand the frustation with dealing with both UCRGrad and IB too. Both of them are rather stubborn and seem to refuse to acknowledge anyone else's viewpoint--even if it's for their own good. But with that said, wish you the best of luck in your studies. And for everybody else, we have to continue to talk this out and improve this article. And that includes continue to debate on both sides of the issues here. I've been very busy with work lately in the office, but I will drop in and try to present some ideas as to bring this article up to higher quality. Teknosoul02 00:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your kind words. I hope in the future, you guys can work things out without their "help" which I'm sure has been a source of stress for you all. 66.214.118.69 01:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Teknosoul02 that we need to continue to "talk this out" and improve this article. I am confident that we can make this happen. UCRGrad 01:30, 17 July

2006 (UTC)

Somehow, I am not confident that we can make this happen. starkt 09:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)