Fountainviewkid

Southern Record

Hi FVK, this is in response to your note on my talk page. This sentence at the Southern Adventist University page is under discussion.

Southern has a strong record of acceptances into medical, dental, and law schools and its symphony orchestra, concert band, choral groups, and gymnastics team tour internationally.

Question: Aren't there assessment sites that report on such record of acceptance? On the high school level, the Fraser Institute reported on schools that had a high rate of students going on to university.

Idea. It may be useful to find news items about SAU's international touring groups.

More later... DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to find them, but haven't met with the greatest success. I will keep looking though. I still don't see why TICUA is an unreliable source.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand those type of sources very much. They probably rely on information provided by the school. The research necessary to verify each schools information would take lots more effort and time. I doubt that TICUA takes such time to independently verify the information submitted by the school. If TICUA describes their process of gathering information, that would be helpful. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It is good to encourage experienced editors to provide critical advice on the WP article. In the end, the article will be stronger for their input. Each editor becomes an acquaintance. They become part of the SAU team of editors. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Donald what you fail to realize is this was initially brought to the talk page by a new IP which COULD very easily be a sock of a banned user. I do not know for sure, but the POSSIBILITY is certainly there. We should be careful at least for that reason if not for the fact that actions were taken BEFORE consensus was obtained. Critical editors need to wait for consensus before making such edits (unless there is some egregious breach of policy). Otherwise a bad precedent is set, one against the principles of Wikipedia.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• It is possible that the initial edit was a sock of a banned user. If the revert has been done by an unregistered IP, then to revert back can be justified IMO. But, now that we have experienced registered editors weighing in, the best way forward is to discuss and examine. Remember, the success of the SAU WP page does not depend on any one disputed sentence, but the overall article. Every critic and their concern helps the page strengthen. For example, two editors have now challenged the source. It is to the WP page's advantage to have them involved. A critic brings strength to the article, not weakness. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

TICUA is an advocacy group that represents its member schools, and it is run by leaders of the schools (current list of the Board of Directors and what schools they are from is here). Southern Adventist University is a member. -- Atama頭 06:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Atama, the link you provided to show membership lists the board members. SAU doesn't have a rep on the board, according to the link you provided. It is a member institution, though. See HERE DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• Question: The information in question is probably true. Would an in text attribution to the source help? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that SAU does not have a rep on the board. But the fact is that the schools are directly involved in the organization, to the extent that half of the board is composed of representatives from member schools. So the organization is not a neutral third party. It would be like using a city's chamber of commerce as a reference for a local business. The PDF is a self-published source, and such sources cannot be "unduly self-serving". As to the accuracy of the information, "Southern has a strong record of acceptances into medical, dental, and law schools", that's a self-promotional claim that really should be backed up by a reliable source. What constitutes a "strong" record? Who determines that? -- Atama頭 09:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand what both of you are saying, which is why I suggested a modification. For example, making only a mention about the music and gymnastics programs and noting that a specific organization has said something about SAU's record into various schools. I still believe it would be possible to use the source as it doesn't have to be "unduly self-serving". I see a way for it to be a valuable piece of information just with more context and a removal of questionable wording.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• TICUA's 'Contact Us' page lists Amy Beckman as the Assistant Director of Research and Technology. She is probably the one who could tell us how the "strong" record was determined. The page gives an email address to contact her. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a good find Donald. I think I might actually look into it. Thanks for being more helpful than others. I appreciate your sense of fairness and balance.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the second part of the quote is somewhat factual, and shouldn't be as problematic. Here's a suggestion, rather than sourcing that PDF, why not use this page? It has the exact same text and you're no longer sourcing a 40+ page advertisement. It still suffers the same SPS issues, but at least it's better than that PDF. Also, I ran across this page, which is still an SPS (SAU provides the info you see there) but there's a lot of info to look at. -- Atama頭 18:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It actually never was sourced to the PDF. I only said you that link because I thought it would show that it's actually in print rather than just some information posted online. I like your link there, and perhaps I can use it. Unfortunately I don't think those who have now entered the Southern Talk page would agree. They haven't been willing in the slightest bit to compromise or try to come to a consensus. It's not making this easy.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Future

After enough losses sometimes it's time to move on. I must be gone and with it my wiki life. Twas a fascinating endeavor while it lasted, but alas all good things must come to an end (this side of Heaven). Farewell.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The End!

This editor has decided to leave Wikipedia.

Fair thee well and if forever,
then forever fair thee well
– Lionel ^(talk) 09:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

FVK, I haven't had much interaction with you, but from what I have observed, you have shown a lot of courage and integrity in your time here. Drrll (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Good-bye, Fountainviewkid! I'm going to miss working with you. As much as Wikipedia needs conservative editors like you, your decision is the correct one: there are many other ways to spend your time that are more productive and fulfilling than editing Wikipedia. It is addicting, though, so I wish you a relatively painless withdrawal. If there's a lesson to be learned here, it's that people (admins are people too) judge by appearances instead of looking deeper to discover what really happened. Keep the faith, and, if you change your mind, you can always come back in a month! Vaya con Dios! --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at WP:WikiProject_Conservatism's talk page.– Lionel ^(talk) 22:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hi,
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Viriditas_and_User:Anupam regarding a dispute between other editors, which briefly touches on some of your edits. Feel free to comment on the thread and provide your own perspective on events. bobrayner (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I'm so sorry to hear that you have already left us. You have been a valued and trusted contributor of the project. I hope you reconsider your retirement and return to Wikipedia once more. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Article on Creationist

Kid,

I need your help on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Veith As it needs work to keep it from being deleted from Wikipedia. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Simbagraphix (talk)

Also if could get your input on this related article for Amazing Discoveries....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Discoveries

....Thanks.Simbagraphix (talk)

(talk page stalker) Sorry for the really late reply, but Fountainviewkid has unfortunately retired. I think you may want to ask someone else to help. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)