Talk:Pennsylvania Western University, California/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Pennsylvania relation

Can someone please add why this University has a relationship with Pennsylvania. For instance, why is a school -- that is out of Pennsylvania state -- part of the Pennsylvania college system?

Another interest is, do students pay in state tuition or out of state tuition if they are a resident of Pennsylvania or California? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp0 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


Where did you get the idea that this school isn't in Pennsylvania? The Wiki article states that its in California, Pennsylvania. All pennsylvania state colleges are named after the city or town they are located in. The school in California is California University of PA and the school in Indiana is Indiana University of PA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.61.234 (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha --Wjmoore17 (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Valedictorians

This page was hopelessly cluttered with a discussion on valedictorians so I deleted it. The majority agreed to keep them listed, though pretty much everyone is also in agreement to have them combined with the notable alumni section. If you want to review the discussion that took places on valedictorians, then look for the change made July 17, at 9:35 EST

  • Discussion restored. It is not proper etiquette to blank discussions. There was no vote and the notion that valedictorians are notable by their academic achievement alone has been addressed elsewhere extensively. Please reference WP's notability criteria. Dee is starting her imaginary edit war again - she blanks a section, then puts it up arguing it should be there, blanks it again, etc. Grow up Deeken. Everyone knows you are the only one participating here66.215.162.112 (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


If there is no vote than why is there information about a vote? It should be left up so no one thinks it didn't happen. If its not valid, theres no reason to delete it - you can argue against its validity based on its own merits, without falsely claiming it never happened. If it is valid, there is no reason to delete it because its valid. 68.162.181.119 (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

References

I noticed the top of the page that said this article doesn't list any references - but all the information in the article can be verified by visiting the external links. So I changed the name of the section to references. After all they are references. I was also going to change the bottom 3, as they are also references, but I wasn't sure if there was a special reason why they were put in the boxes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.191.100 (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

General

A paragraph in the page reads "The institution that is now California University of Pennsylvania began as a normal more than 150 years ago. It has evolved over the years until now it is a multi-purpose university." Normal what?

.....a "Normal School" was a school for teachers up until the mid 1900's....IUP was also a Normal School at one time.

Comment: It looks like this article could use editing for NPOV and "future history" Dystopos 02:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I grew up thirty feet from the campus of Cal U (as we called it). Saying it's "30 miles from Pittsburgh" is a little inaccurate -- that may be the physical distance, but to actually drive to Pittsburgh, one must navigate a complex network of backroads. There's no direct highway; the trip takes at least an hour, and that's if you're speeding.

Comment: Driving times changed. Krollburg 10:32 4 May 2005

Recently, a direct route from Pittsburgh to California, PA has been constructed (Rt. 43). Therefore, it takes only 30-45 min. to get there. Plus, it is direct and is only around 30 miles now.

Valedictorians?

Thanks for posting this on the Cal net. I voted. Hopefully it went through - this is my first time on wikipedia. I really think its important for Cal's reputation that these valedictorians are listed. I know one is pursuing study at an elite university right now, another is soon to follow. When people see their publications and want to know more about them, they'll search and get this result, which will raise Cal's status and public knowledge about the university. I wouldn't want valedictorians from any later than 2004. I feel only those who needed to get a 96% or better in all of their classes to be named valedictorian are deserving of the recognition. And only those who met that requirement are going to be able to bring esteem to the university through their future work at other institutions. - Jessica Brown Sweet Apple Goodness (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to list any valedictorian here? What is the encyclopedic value unless they are notable persons? DeeKenn 18:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Obviously the university sees a benefit to having them or such a section wouldn't have been listed in the first place.. besides, valedictorians are part of the school's history, and the schools history does have encyclopedic value. You shouldn't just remove sections that a university or organization put up just because you don't like the particular field —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.83.70.24 (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is not, and should not, be written by the university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.184.53 (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Really, I think that the valedictorians section is un-necessary. I won't remove it, but it's my opinion that it is not needed. --Wjmoore17 (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The valedictorian section as just as relevant as the notable alumni section. If its okay for one to be up, its okay for both to be up. There's no difference between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.112.128 (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If there's no difference between the two (and I beg to differ), then they should be combined. DeeKenn (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

DeeKen, I'd like to remind you that it is considered vandalism to remove a section of an article without first proposing a discussion on whether or not that section should removed. also, in case you don't revisit this page and attempt to delete the section again, without discussion, I added a little note to it. Cal does not have valedictorians at every graduation - they require valedictorians to have straight A's in all classes. Even one A- prevents the student from being considered a valedictorian. You will not find a list of valedictorians for every graduation quite simply because there isn't always one. This is well-known at cal. your deleting the section based on the fact there isn't a valedictorian for every graduation makes me think you are attempting to edit information that you have no knowledge about.

Please be careful when using the term vandalism; this issue was addressed by me on 31 Jul 2007 and is not a hit and run blanking. Having said that, being a valedictorian is not notable unless that person is notable themselves. Furthermore, this statement ...

The entire Cal community salutes them as being some of our most notable students during their time here.

... is a ridiculous generalization that embarrasses the section. Who is the Cal community? It sounds as if the university itself has written that section. Nowhere did I say that there is a valedictorian for each graduation, either, and your assumption that I know little about Cal U, or our little "Harvard on the Mon" couldn't be further from the truth. I went to Cal for two years before I transferred to Pitt. Always assume good faith, please. DeeKenn (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You have said on the change page that your reason for deleting it was "list all valedictorians or none" though all valedictorians for quite a while are listed. Also going back over the edits, you have a tendency to delete this section the week before graduation, thereby attempting to keep your "all valedictorians" demand from ever being met. If you took the time to read the comments in reply to your initial one, then you would know that it was vandalism for you to delete the section. You have never addressed the pro side before any of your deletions on it. Also, if you have a problem with the way something is worded you don't delete the entire section. You reword it more appropriately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.61.87 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite a while? There's only three listed. The timing of my edits is coincidental; there's nothing to be derived from coincidence so please refrain from assuming motive. My only motive is to keep this article factual and non POV. For all I know, you are one of the three valedictorians listed. Please go to the Harvard article. Look it over. Would you think that being valedictorian for Harvard would be an achievement worth noting? Of course. But, alas, there's nothing... DeeKenn (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I see, so deleting facts, and writing a reason for your deletions on the edit page, then coming here and claiming you never supported the reason you wrote on the other page, keeps this article factual? How does that work? Quite simply it doesn't, and your attempt to start an edit war of thsoe section is very immature. Look over this section, out of all the posters here you are the only one who doesn't agree with this inclusion. Yet you still feel a need to routinely come here and delete it. You need to face facts and thats that your in the minority here and so you are going to have to accept that others disagree with you, and you will need to accept that until and unless more people comment and agree with you. Seriously, don't post something on the edit page, if you can't admit to it on the discussion page. It only takes a second to flip between pages. Pick a belief that you can validate then stick with it, whether than changing your mind at any opportunity. Perhaps you should be doing that instead of throwing out ridiculous accusatoins like "i'm a valedictorian" that have no proof. Then your actions wouldn't be invalidating your statements at every turn

I wonder, arent' you also the poster who said that the valedictorian section should be combined with the notable alumni section, then when that was accomplihsed went through and removed all valedictorians from the notable alumni section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.125.7 (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Skirt the issues much? Is this a BRD? I am here; explain to me again how this section warrants inclusion. DeeKenn (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

well, Jane, at least she's willing to talk about the issue now instead of repeatedly deleting sections put up by various users. Valedictorians are notable by the very fact that they have managed to become valedictorians under such stringent requirements that leads to most graduations not having one. Dee, you have yet to offer any counter to that. We are not talking about Harvard (which by the way is a school wellknown for not letting students get less than a C in any class), we are talking about Cal, and repeated deletions that as far as I can tell, have only been done by you over the past 2 years. About 5 people have undid those deletions. However, I would love to see you take part in the BRD process, by explaining why you feel your opinion is more valid than the majority who have routinely undid your changes, and I'd like to see it backed up with more than just a "I don't feel its valid" statement or without pulling in things from all over the place completely unrelated to the article (ie accusing people on the pro side of being valedictorians instead of commenting on the facts presented). However, its also important to note that it says on the BRD page it will fail if a large consensus supports the opposing view, and so far you are the only visitor whose ever felt the need to delete this page, as opposed to the 5 I've identified who undid your changes. As best that I'm able, I'm going to try to contact those people so they can put their views here. I'm also curious to see if you are the poster who removed the names from the notable alumni section, thereby making clear why it was necessary to have a separate valedictorian section. Though i personally feel that given how rare it is to have a valedictorian at a Cal graduation, the valedictorians names should be included in the list with other notable alumni instead of being given a separate section. And if you were the person who deleted those names, I'd love to hear your explanation for doing that, without any comment or attempt at discussion here, when you've said previously you felt the valedictorian section should be removed.

It was wrong to blank the section without first reaching a compromise with the other people, and continuing to blank once you saw your change being undone, but I understand you may not have been unaware of inappropriate that behavior was at the time. Blanking a section should only be done in extreme cases where vandalism is apparent, or when two or more sections are combined. CarterLThomas (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

well, Jane, at least she's willing to talk about the issue...

OK, that was a bizarre little episode. To whom were you talking? Bizarre issues aside, valedictorians are not notable unless they themselves are notable. Academic achievement is not notable as it is common. The fact that Cal doesn't have one every graduation is not indicative of the stringent requirements; it is indicative of the caliber of students. So, if you wish to list past valedictorians, do as I said above (which you apparently don't understand): list all valedictorians. If it is indeed such a monumental event that the entire community prides itself on, then there should be ample reliable third-party sources to draw data from. Good luck and I look forward to your contributions to expand the section. DeeKenn (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Academic achievement is common. Being a valedictorian at Cal is a rarity. To say that it is an indicator of the caliber of students at Cal, shows a very clear lack of knowledge on the requirements for grades at Cal and even lesser knowledge about the current requirements needed to get into Cal in the first place. The only reason valedictorians are common at other universities is rather than having students earn it, as Cal does, they automatically award the position to the person with the highest grades, even when those grades are lackluster. to list all valedictorians for the past 150 years is purely ridiculous and you know it. Also, if you truly have attended Cal, then you would know about the constantly changing requirements, and why it is significantly more difficult to become a valedictorian today, then it was say 10 years ago. Yet you avoid that issue entirely and instead insist on naming people who were called valedictorians before todays stringent measures were put into place. That would be as ridiculous as considering a valedictorian from Pit notable - after all Pitt has a valedictorian at every graduation even if they have a few B's, or even a C grade. All valedictorians that emerged since the tightening of requirements for being a valedictorian are listed. i would think someone familiar with Cal, as you claim to be, would know that without having to be told.

    • I also find it more than telling that you are continuously avoiding issues that have been addressed to you such as the question about removing valedictorians from the notable alumni section, after saying you felt it should be included there, the fact that you are the only proposing your view, with the exception of Wes who felt it wasn't necessary to delete the section, yet you still insist your view has more validity than the opposing point, your repeated deletions of the section, undoing changes by multiple users, which does fit the criteria for vandalism, your accusing people of being valedictorians rather than attacking their argument... Heretofor your entire behavior regarding this issue, over the past 2 years, not just recent developments, is trollish. Wikipedia is not a power-trip and should never be treated as such

Address the issue, stop making ridiculous demands, and stop throwing out insults because you aren't able to come up with a defense to your point. Discussion requires a willingness to discuss which you have so far been against doing in any form. I realize you must be hurt at the fact that you weren't able to hold a 4.0 at Cal, but thats no reason to take out your anger here. Not everyone can do it. hence the reason there are only 3 valedictorians listed. people have different skills in different areas. Work on your skills, not your anger, and you will go far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarterLThomas (talk • contribs) 18:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"There's much to be said about brevity." There is one part of your rant that is worth addressing, and that would be this:

... it is significantly more difficult to become a valedictorian today, than it was say 10 years ago.

Then provide the citation and references needed and contrast Cal's requirements with other universities; then its notability will be a little more clear. DeeKenn (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"I'm glad the valedictorians are listed here. Though I agree that it should be combined in the notable alumni section - they are notable alumni after all. Perhaps putting them all on the same line rather than giving them separate asterisks could appease everyone

DeeKenn, why aren't you willing to answer questions about your pov? It seems a strange thing to do given the situation." - JS

I'll answer that as soon as someone tells me what my POV is. I'm not a mind-reader. Regarding notability, everyone really needs to check Wikipedia's guidelines that I posted above. Being a valedictorian does not follow the criteria for notability. DeeKenn (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this page, there seems to be no reason for an unsourced list of valedictorians here. It's not encyclopedic information, is not notable outside of the university, and is unsourced. There doesn't seem to be any precedent for such a list on any other college or university page. Dayewalker (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

since, as mentioned above, being a valedictorian does not meet the criteria for notability on wikipedia, then specific valedictorians should not be mentioned in the article unless they are notable for reasons acceptable to wikipedia's standards. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I added some photos recently to spruce up the page. It's easy enough to take pictures, seeing as I live here. --Wjmoore17 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Some Logo Stuff

I got rid of the little script logo, as I deemed it useless for this page. It is used for sports and stuff, not as much for scholarly reasons. Instead, I added the official University script logo, which I feel fits much better. --Wjmoore17 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CUP.jpg

Image:CUP.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

notable alumni

Why was Dr. Natali removed from the notable alumni section? He's one of the most wellknown alumni alive today. At first I thought he might have removed himself but looking closely I think some others are missing as well. There used to be people whose name aren't clickable. Did someone shoot this section or were pages added for the alumni whose names weren't clickable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorschat (talk • contribs) 00:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Dr. Natali performed excellently. He was very interested in helping students and as a Faculty Sponsor of IRHC he attended our meetings and offered helpful advice, though that was before he became a Doctor and further in charge, though I do have bias as he invited me to gain some experience and then return to work for CUP. Entry submitted by Dr. Bob Benchoff of VGC Foundation and A Check Exact industrial process innovative design labs.

GRRR, I found out where the notable alumni section was vandalized (some names that included sources were removed). Im putting them back up,minus a couple i don't think are really notable. (ie sare and fernandes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorschat (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What about Igoe and Boltner. Once an amateur soccer player and it doesn't appear that Igoe has won any awards. I'm going to go ahead and remove them but add them back if I'm wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.83.186.23 (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I added Garrett Kelleher. He attended but did not graduate from Cal but is certainly a notable person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quarternelson (talk • contribs) 03:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


Up for debate. Add him if you want: Richard C. Grace, class of ‘63 & ‘72. Grace was the senior vice president and manager of the human resources regional service center after previously serving as the vice president/manager (HR), assistant vice president of employment and development programs and employment manager. PNC Bank is the eleventh largest bank holding company in the United States with more than 26,000 employees and $75 billion in assets. He currently owns Grace Consulting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.186.236 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


Can anyone confirm the Dr. Bob Benchoff entry? It looks bogus to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quarternelson (talk • contribs) 02:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC) This being a [CSC] California University of Pennsylvania, CUP, site, CUP should be able to confirm for you the following: Degrees earned in the 1970s, as undergraduate per CUP's Dr. Janet Nelson, was flown to the state capitol as the Representative of the Distinguished Faculty Awards Committee, presided over IRHC, on Student Cabinet, received state trophy, as grad student solely used the Head Dean's Office while Dr. Pavlak was on sabbatical leave and was in charge at times the Assistant was sick or on vacation. Federal Government has had him work on both classified areas and public domain areas, you can look it up concerning his pertinent A Check Exact labs business in the Federal Government's C.A.G.E. System online, Dun & Bradstreet number, DBN, 884063355. Projects he claims he controlled that appear in the Guinness Book Of World Records you can look up and then contact their business entities. You can look up his addiction treatment coordination legislation / VGC Foundation / Nonprofit 501(c)(3) DNB 958264301. Mecklenburg County, NC, has his Chief Judge info on file. And you can ask US Presidents.

FineLine Multimedia is doing well and might be on its way up, so I just want to bring up that its founder Fred Findley graduated from Cal in 2005. I didn't add him yet though because the company still has a bit to go —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.186.236 (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Voting section

An IP editor has reinstated the original voting section, which had been deleted. In the interest of completion, I've moved it to the bottom of the page, where discussions should go. However, I've collapsed it, since consensus is not a vote and any results obtained from this section do not necessarily establish the notability of valedictorians. Dayewalker (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Collapsed, as consensus is not a vote. -- Dayewalker (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

VOTING: If you are coming here as a result of the buzz on campus regarding the valedictorian section please cast your vote by signing your name under your choice. It would be most beneficial if you explained the reason for your choice as well. If you agree with more than one choice, sign your name under both sections, indicating your first and second choice preference by (1) and (2) after your name

Leave as is: 1 CarterLThomas (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (2) Jessica Brown 2 Sweet Apple Goodness (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Combine valedictorian section with notable alumni section: 1 CarterLThomas (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (1) Jessica Brown 1 Sweet Apple Goodness (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC), Joe Smithfield Entirely remove valedictorian information: 0

Removed Notable, Yet Again

The IP who has been continually adding the valedictoran section has now switched to adding the name of Eric Miller as a musician and valedictorian under the Notable Alumni section. According to the previous edits [1], this person was valedictorian in 2006. According to the page for the musician Eric Miller, he's a house DJ who released songs that hit the charts in 1998 and 2002. Not only is this is all completely unsourced, the timeline doesn't seem to make any sense that these are the same person. I've removed his name again. If someone has proof this person is the Eric Miller who was a DJ (and has his own article and notability), or can show this person is notable enough to belong here, feel free to add it back. At this point it just seems to be an anonymous IP adding a name to a page. Dayewalker (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

How does that time line not make any sense? You haven't even mentioned any time line? Unless you are saying he can't be a notable alumni because he hit the charts prior to matriculating. I'm not buying that reasoning. He's notable, regardless of whether he hit the charts prior to or afterward —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.184.14 (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, it's still completely unsourced, and consensus on the page (and on every other page I've looked up) is that valedictorians are not inherently notable. As for the timeline, assuming Eric Miller was at least 18 at the time of his first recording (1988 as per the references on his page), he would have been 36 at the time of his graduation and valedictorian honors. It seems a bit dubious to link the two without proper sources. The Eric Miller (musician) page doesn't mention his choice of college at all. It's reasonable to suspect the two entries aren't for the same person.
IP, if you think this Eric Miller person who was valedictorian is notable, register an ID and make him his own wikipedia page. Once that's on the wiki, he's notable and can be added back to this page. Dayewalker (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would I create a wiki page for someone who ALREADY HAS one. Did you even bother to click the link before claiming he had no wiki page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.184.14 (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Because as I said above, Eric Miller (musician) doesn't seem to be the same person as the person who was valedictorian at this college. Please provide some kind of reliable source they are the same person, if you wish to add them. Dayewalker (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to offer any proof he isn't. All you did was claim he's too old to be this person, which doesn't make even a slight bit of sense, and is a very foolish reason for deleting the page is there is nothing about graduating college that says you must be in your early 20s. It hasn't been the 1980s for two decades now. Every college has a large population of nontraditional students. Did you even bother to google anything before deciding you know beyond a doubt that this isn't the same person. "eric miller" "musician" "california university." Don't delete without making any attempt to find the correct info

Please. Anyone who watches this page knows where adding this non-notable person's name came from. He's allegedly a former valedictorian with an IP edit warring to keep his name on the page. The burden of proof is with the person who adds the information, and you've yet to produce any evidence showing this person is the person who's been a profesional musician for twenty years (according to their page).
I'm not going to edit war over this. I'm just going to take it to WP:ANI for a quick discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • to the IP editor: if you are sure this is the same eric miller, please WP:PROVEIT. this is standard policy. Theserialcomma (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


Anyone who follows this page knows that Eric Miller was listed as the music since the day he was put up. However the person who was repeatedly deleting the valedictorian without discussion would remove his source link a week beforehand to give credence to her actions - check the page history. Furthermore, who ever is still selectively deleting people from the notable alumni needs to review the notability page as both Berger and Napolitano meet more than one of the criteria for notability.So lets follow the rules okay? This page's notable alumni section has been regularly vandalized ever since one person through a temper tantrum because she was unable to get straight A's at Cal and was embarassed by it - its time to grow up and at least treat editing the page like you have the intelligence of an 8 year old

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.72.131 (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Provide evidence of your accusations, please, and comment on edits, not editors. Your personal attacks aren't going to help. Dayewalker (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Oh very interesting to right this, at the same time you DELETED where I did just that. If such a thing happens again, or you attempt to vandalize the notable alumni section again, I will see that you are reported this is your last warning. And your actions of deleting my explanation and then complaining that I'm not providing one shows a lot about your reasoning for deleting these people. Its quite clear its not because you disagree with their notability - otherwise you wouldn't have needed to delete my explanation to post that I didn't have a reason. So why don't you put back up the part about why these people both are notable, Napoliton's biography in Forbes,frequent citations by peers in his field, how Berger helped changed the way newspaper ads are treated, etc that was on display immediately before you posted that no reasoning was giving. Or are you going to refuse to restore that because it would mean you can no longer take token revenge by deleting their names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.72.131 (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly can't understand what you're trying to say, but if you're threatening me with reporting me to someone, by all means go right ahead and do so. That'll save us all some time.
Looking at the people you keep trying to add to this page (and refreshing myself on the criteria you quoted above), I can't see how these people warrant mention here. To begin with, the addition is completely unsourced and the pages on their companies don't mention them at all. Furthermore, simply being a founder or president of a notable company does not automatically confer notablility. If you think these people are notable, why don't you register a username and create a properly sourced article about them? That way there won't be any question as to their notability. Dayewalker (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Since you've added above, I'll comment below. Do you have those sources, or can you go through the history of the page and show where they were posted? That would help. Dayewalker (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This is now the third time I've written this explanation here. Every time I try to post it, it gets deleted from your comments. If you want the sources you are going to have to stop undoing my edits. I'm tired of repeatedly explaining how both Napolotina and Berger are well within the notability criteria, only to have them deleted from you editing when i post. If you want them you are actually going to have to let me write something. I need a break now, I'm frustrating from doing this several times only to have my edit undone several times by the one person here who claims she wants to see what I'm writing. I'll try again, but next DON"T DELETE WHAT I write. You would have had this info three edits ago if you were just willing to give me a chance to post instead of uundoing my edits —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.72.131 (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has deleted any of your edits off of the talk page, if you can show they have, please do. You say the two people satisfy at least two of the criteria for notability, please explain which two those are. Dayewalker (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeint that you once again deleted these people, while at the same time deleting my explanation for they are notable THREE times. I see no other possible resolve but to report you for vandalism. I'll post the explanation again when you are gone, so that those who are interested have a chance to see why anyone who wants to can see the truth rather than a vandalized alumni section and talkpage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.72.131 (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do. You can use this page for a vandalism report, or go straight to this one for more administrator assiatance. Dayewalker (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the point, the IP has again added the unsourced information with no further explanation, and threatened a 3RR block for anyone who removed it. Since both sides have filed complaints at the edit war board, I'll ask again for proof these people are notable. You say you've provided proof of their notablility but as far as I can tell, you've never posted links to any reliable sources. I would suggest again you provide some source for your assertions, and also read WP's page on Tendentious editing. You're being reverted by multiple editors, and consensus is against you. Dayewalker (talk) 06:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

California Vulcans

The athletics page isn't very large, and could be merged into this page easily and would give this article some needed length. Grsz11 23:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. The athletics page isn't sourced, either, but it would fit here to bulk up the article. Dayewalker (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, looking more, the section in this article seems better than that article to begin with. Grsz11 16:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Online Programs at Cal U

President Angelo Armenti,in the early part of this decade, had a vision of a large group of Cal U students taking courses and receiving their degrees completely using web tools. Today in 2009, approximately 1200 students (graduate and undergraduate) take courses online from the regular faculty at this university. Kinseytg (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Kinseytg

Teaching with Wikipedia Workshop at CMU (Aug 15)

Editors interested in this article may find the Teaching with Wikipedia Workshop that will take place at CMU on Aug 15 of interest. This workshop is open to general public, and is a joint imitative of CMU and Pitt). There will be another workshop held at Pitt in the Fall as well. It will cover how to include Wikipedia in one's course (WP:SUP) and also how to become a Wikipedia:Campus Ambassadors. Pennsylvania has currently only one ambassador (myself) and it would be great if we could recruit at least several more. Ambassadors help course instructors, showing them how Wikipedia works, and interact with students. Many current ambassadors come from the body of students, faculty and university staff; it is a fun adventure, and adds to one resume/CV, to boot :) If it sounds interesting, feel free to ask me any questions, or to come to the workshop. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on California University of Pennsylvania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on California University of Pennsylvania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California University of Pennsylvania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pennsylvania_Western_University,_California/Archive_1&oldid=1196778808"