Talk:Garden City Community College
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
President of GCCC edit
On the Wiki page it states that Carol Ballantyne is president of the college however since Feb. of 2011 Dr. Herbert J Swender Sr. has been president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.204.194.194 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Logo edit
GCCC adopted a new logo in October 2012. The "cube" logo used on this page is incorrect. Please contact the GCCC marketing department to obtain the new logo.198.248.196.125 (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring to remove details about why the president was fired edit
Sbmeirow is edit warring to remove details about why this college's president was recently fired. First, he or she removed information because "some of these words [are] not in the article." That is patently false so I restored the information. Next, he or she removed the same information because it was "too much unimportant junk that can easily be read through the reference link." In his or her preferred version, the article simply states that the was fired with no mention whatsoever about why this happened. The "unimportant junk" that is "too much" for this article is a whole 289 bytes that consists primarily of the brief explanation that the firing occured "after the college's faculty senate presented the board with a report describing 'bullying, intimidation, sexual harassment and retaliation allegations against Swender and concerns about the college’s upcoming accreditation review.'"
Why exactly is this brief explanation - a sentence fragment - "too much" for this article? Why is it "unimportant junk" to succinctly explain why this college president was fired? And why is Sbmeirow lying to remove this information and edit warring to ensure that it's removed? ElKevbo (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- 1) For my first edit, I likely thought the article was a short blurb that stopped at the "Related content". This is why my first comment was "trim because some of these words not in the article", and a valid comment per what I thought at that point in time. Looking at my edit, it matches what I previously said.
- 2) Next, for your edit, you reverted it back to your original edit, then posted the profanity "b*llsh*t" as part of your comment.
- 3) For my second group of edits, I shortened it to be longer than my first edit (above). You didn't like my first edit, so I changed it, which is part of "users are expected to collaborate with others" as YOU clearly stated in text on my personal talk page.
- 4) Next, you blew up, threatened me with edit waring, claimed I was "lying", instead of asking me to clarify my comment before throwing rocks at me.
- 5) Concerning the NEWS ARTICLE, this isn't a court case, instead it's an employer vs employee issue. Wikipedia isn't tabloid news, thus a neutral thinned down wording should be preferred. Days later, I agree now that I shortened it too much, but still some of it is not needed.
- 6) Thus far, you have NOT proposed any alternate edits. You already knew that I didn't like your original edit.
- Huh? Thus far, I haven't tried to remove 100% of this subject matter, instead I've ONLY tried to trim it down. You aren't even trying to collaborate. You are purely using the "edit war" threat as a way to make no changes to your post. Thus far, you have NOT proposed any alternate edits that will make you happy. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm totally fine with your most recent edit that trims some details from the former president's settlement package. I'm not fine with your previous edit that removed information "because some of these words not in the article" (when the information clearly was in the cited source) or your edit that removed the reason why the president was fired and replaced it with the vague reason "because of his behavior." ElKevbo (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)