User talk:Fletch81

Welcome!

Hello, Fletch81, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

<non template welcome> Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hope you like the place. Please ask anyone around if you have any questions about anything. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thank you for your recent, thoughtful clean-up of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill article! Thank you for finding the time (as I could not do) to research, rewrite and reword, rather than perpetuating the pendulum of "first/second" reversions. I especially liked your suggestion that the universities in this tug of war come up with a mutually agreed upon paragraph that would appear in each article. Hennap (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added and referenced a sentence about being the "flagship" in the history section around where the UNC system is mentioned. I'm using NCSU and UNCG references to establish dates and the Journal of Higher Education for its explicit mention. I think that's pretty solid. I'm not bothered if we lose the "de facto", but it struck me as a sensible modifier. I've also archived our discussion on the article talk since we seem to have reached a successful conclusion! Artichoke2020 (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin on the university seal says "Seal of the University of North Carolina", but just removing the word "Sigul" (~ seal) doesn't leave "University of North Carolina". At the moment we (effectively) have "Of the University of North Carolina" on the infobox. University should definitely become "Universitas" and there needs to be an "-is" ending on North Carolina. See la:Nomina universitatum Latina decreto adoptata in the Latin Wikipedia. Artichoke2020 (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, after reading the discussion page, I agreed with Holla213. It seems the edits were sensible, verifiable, and in good faith. They definitely were accurate and concise. I changed them back. If you have any questions, let's please take it to the discussion page.

Reported Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Holla213 Kww (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was inconclusive. It was 1 support-0 oppose, hardly enough to justify moving a page from it's original name, especially while making it more vague. While I do think that Carolina-Clemson rivalry title should be changed, I don't feel that it's my place to do that. I have never edited the article and know nothing about the rivalry. I did move it to NC State-North Carolina rivalry at your request, though. I do agree that is much more clear that way. AceKingQueenJack (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page has a very biased tone. I'm pretty new to this whole editing thing, so excuse my ignorance about what citations are appropriate and what are not. I added two events that did happen. While I don't have the name and birth date of the UNC students or fans that painted over Yow's face, I think it deserves mention. And while you are correct that the source is StateFansNation, the photo proves that the vandalism exists. I don't understand why SFN isn't a valid source. Same goes for the vandalism around campus in previous years. The page implies that UNC's only prank has been to paint the tunnel and that NCSU students have vandalized important parts of UNC's campus. In reality, the rivalry has produced graffiti all over NC State's campus, and the old well painting is the first such act of serious vandalism I've known on UNC's campus. While classless and inexcusable, the old well painting was an act of retaliation for many such incidents in Raleigh.

Since you imply that I'm not worthy to edit this page with the tone of your comments and speedy deletion of my contributions, I challenge you to incorporate the facts I mentioned in a way that suits the criteria. You obviously don't want my help correcting a blatant bias and omission of facts in this article. If I don't do it, you should. If you choose not to, please explain to me why you've chosen not to.Bradbutler01 (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I wasn't accusing you of blatant bias. I was accusing that section of the article of a blatant bias. Although from your edit history, it is obvious that you're an avid Carolina fan or employee. If carolina blue paint shows up on NC State's campus, it is a safe bet that it is relevant to a "NCSU-UNC rivalry" discussion, especially when the incident happens the night of a basketball game. I wouldn't argue the relevance of red paint on UNC's campus. I don't appreciate the tag of what I posted as 'vandalism.' I didn't take the time to explore your other edits in detail, but most of them seem to be removing people's edits and tagging them as vandalism as well. One such act of 'vandalism' was adding Owen Spencer to NC State Football's list of notable players.

And yes, while SFN was the source I cited, a minute later I found this article on WRAL.com [1]. Should I bother rewriting the addition with this new citation, or will you delete that one as well?

I understand why you don't want your university associated with such a news story. It is bad publicity. Understand that State grads feel the same way about the old well story. Note that I did not try to delete that story (that would certainly qualify as vandalism). Please don't let your preferences about publicity jade the quality and diversity of information that this article includes. Honestly, the article is pretty dull as it stands, and could use a full account of the history of the graffiti wars between the two campuses, as well as some more colorful stories on both sides of the rivalry. I'm sure we both know of plenty of interesting facts and occurrences that would make this article much more interesting. Bradbutler01 (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, three of the four sources in that section are Inside Carolina, the Daily Tar Heel, and The Wolf Web. The fourth is a broken link. Could you please explain how these sources are reliable if SFN isn't? Of course it is a moot point since WRAL is obviously a reliable source, I'm just curious how those sources are justified if SFN isn't. Bradbutler01 (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those citations link to the message boards, not the news sections of TWW and IC.

It is an issue of free speech, and whoever did it won't be pursued criminally. Whoever painted the messages was fully within their rights. Therefore the names won't be released by the university, and we'll never have a police report that says "UNC students defaced Kay Yow's memorial." If you have any reason to believe that anyone BUT a Carolina fan or student would paint Carolina Blue in the NCSU free expression tunnel after a Carolina-NCSU basketball game with a heated exchange between players in the end, please share. Otherwise, I maintain that it is a safe assumption, and not speculation, and I maintain that your motive is not preventing vandalism, but preventing the exposure of facts that might tarnish the image of UNC.

Given that my motive was revealing facts and cleaning up a biased article, and that you refer to my writings as vandalism, and given that the other stories contained in the article weren't sanitized, I'm not inclined to believe that your true motive is to remove vandalism. Bradbutler01 (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan on pursuing this much farther, I don't see a need to bring in a third party. It is obvious that we'll never agree. I would like to see the defacing made public and you don't want the event to be associated with your school, both because it was a shameless, classless act. The police don't plan on pursuing this, so we'll never have names. I suppose that without names, there isn't enough proof to keep people like you from deleting the information from wikipedia. It would be nice to see the colorful side of the rivalry represented in this wikipedia article.

A question - according to your interpretation, would it meet the factual standards of wikipedia to add the information to the free expression tunnel page as you suggested, then add a link to that information and a sentence or two such as: "The light-blue paint and the fact that it showed up immediately following the NCSU-UNC basketball game have led some to believe that the mural was defaced by UNC students or fans. Due to the "free speech" policy of the tunnel, and the fact that NCSU police won't pursue the vandals, names are unlikely to be released, and it is unlikely to be proven who defaced the tunnel."Bradbutler01 (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A heads-up: Technician has posted a story. Quote: "At 3:30 Sunday morning, Student Body President Jay Dawkins and Student Senate President Pro Tempore Kelli Rogers began to repaint sections of the Free Expression Tunnel after a UNC fan painted remarks about cancer in the tunnel." Any objection to using this citation? [2] - Bradbutler01 (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The painter being a UNC fan was mentioned twice in the article. The second mention, which you are talking about, was a quote from the Student Senate President, and did say essentially "I don't know." The first mention is not listed as a quote, is not qualified in any way, it is stated as fact.

This RfC, from what I can see... (I'm totally new to this, not sure how it works) It appears to be a heading "Inclusion of opinion statement..." and nothing else. Is there more to this? Is there an explanation of what the issue is somewhere? Shall I post links to articles to allow a third party to judge whether it is opinion or fact, and therefore whether it should be included in the article? Bradbutler01 (talk) 06:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I've been up to is scouring for proof, finding evidence, and defending my position. While our discourse hasn't been without some emotion, it is a legitimate discussion of the available evidence. I understand the idea of getting a third party to weigh in and I think it is an appropriate action. My question or you, as a much more experienced wikipedia editor, was about the procedure. I think I've answered my own question.

After reading the article more carefully, I noticed that the red paint on the old well does not implicate NC State students or fans. The citation also does not cite any proof or speculation on who did it. Given our discussion, would that incident also qualify as having not enough proof to be relevant to this article?

Let me be clear about why I'm interested in seeing this through. The old well incident and other vandalism on UNC's campus is included. While illegal and not excusable, the vandalism was not just in response to the blue tunnel, but in response to other graffiti on NC State's campus that defaced more than just a wall intended for graffiti. My intent is to provide balance, not make UNC look bad. As the article is written, it makes NC State look bad.

I did look through your previous edits, and most of what you do is remove legitimate vandalism. I apologize for implying that your actions weren't legitimate as I had only looked at the "Wolfpack Football" page and saw that you had removed Owen Spencer's name, calling that vandalism. My assumption was that your action towards my edit was some sort of attempt at censorship. I believe now that your motivation is a legitimate concern about the factual accuracy of this issue. Luckily, when two rational people argue things out, the result is usually better than either person's initial position. Let's hope that whatever may come of this makes the article more interesting and balanced in an accurate, mutually acceptable way. Bradbutler01 (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not broken the 3RR rule, but you have. Thank you Fletch81 (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And with your last edit, you just did. You've clearly violated the SPIRIT of the rule as well with your edit warring. You're welcome.

talk) 03:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I did not. I made a unique edit to remove the POV and correct the link. Thank you. Fletch81 (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just like my unique edit that you dishonestly labeled a "revert" in your 3RR report? You're welcome again.

talk) 03:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I corrected my mistake, and apologized in the 3RR report. Thank you. Fletch81 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that pretty much makes us even in violating the rule then? Enjoy your block which should be handed down at the same time as mine. You're welcome.

talk) 03:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You are mistaken. I never violated the 3RR rule, I simply corrected where I accused you of a fourth reversion. I have only made two reverts. Thank you. Fletch81 (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep denying it. Anyone who looks at the diffs knows the truth. You're welcome.

talk) 04:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Once again, I have not violated the 3RR rule. You should read the policy on what a 3RR violation is. You may do well to read

WP:NPOV. Thanks Fletch81 (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Content disputes are not exempt from 3RR. Q ^{T C} 05:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I have never claimed otherwise. I am curious why ViperNerd continues to remove things from his talk page and placing them here. Fletch81 (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are as guilty as I am.

talk) 06:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This does not make sense to me. I contend you are in violation of the 3RR,

WP:NPOV, and WP:VANITY. I have addressed my concerns, yet you are holding me to a standard that you fail to meet by removing my concerns from your talk page. That is generally frowned upon. For example of your double standard, you inserted citation requests on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill page, yet deleted every one I placed on the University of South Carolina page that you could not source. I provided them without question, and they improved the article. The South Carolina Gamecocks article is filled with sources to make the Gamecocks "look good," yet when I provide an article to address a claim made in the article written by a reputable publication, you deny it because it does not meet your ever-changing criteria of a good source. I am working to improve the articles, and every statement I have made has had a source, requested one, or removed POV content. This may not always be to your liking, but if you cannot support a source, you cannot make the statement. That is simply not how wikipedia works. Fletch81 (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Like I've said, how about from this point forward you stick to editing articles about your precious bluebellies, and let those of us with true interest in improving USC articles take care of that task, no matter how slowly we are doing it for your taste? You've proven yourself very adept at providing sources for the UNC-CH article, would you have us believe that you couldn't do the same for other articles that don't live up to your lofty standards? All you can do is plaster them with fact tags and POV templates? Please don't insult the intelligence of your fellow Wikipedia editors.

talk) 06:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Why the need for insults? Once again, you cannot place information in an article awaiting a source. Simply find the source and then include the material. I am holding you to no loftier standards than those set forth by wikipedia. As far as plastering with fact tags, you did this ad nauseum, while I reserved mine for certain statements. As far as the POV templates, I did so to garner opinion from other editors before making changes. You abruptly removed the POV template and bluntly told me to insert the fact tags rather than place the POV template. I tried to do so, and you removed them each time. I simply cannot win, and I won't resort to insults to make wikipedia better, which is all I am trying to do. Thank you Fletch81 (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) Just a friendly follow-up that while you may not have violated the 3RR rule, your actions may be construed as

Just a heads up, the RFCbot indicated there was an error for your RFC template for the