User talk:Uuchie

Who are you and what is your personal vendetta against Dr. Boze?

Please take it offline. If you want to contact her, she has a real contact name (see earlier posts by BVBoze) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.206.254.172 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, this IP has a history of deleting content from Betsy Boze. I've warned the IP accordingly. Also, thank you for using an edit summary to explain your edit. —C.Fred (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome to Wikipedia.

I don't have a dog in this fight, so am not reverting anything that you added. I edit primarily higher education profiles, especially controversial institutions and individuals.

While many things are news at the time, they are less newsworthy with the passage of time. Unless something new steers us back there, most of my colleagues and I let it drop, as has been done with this entry. So while you are correct that it is sourced, this is sufficiently old news that all but one of your sources are no longer active links.

Your entries do seem focused primarily on her. Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for personal grievances. But, if you feel so strongly about it, you may wish to get a ruling from the Wikipedia editorial board. If not, please refrain from using Wikipedia for this purpose. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by FallenAngelsandDemons (talk • contribs) 21:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Hi, and thanks for the (albeit little late :)) welcome. Also, thank you for taking the time to discuss the issue instead of partaking in a edit war.

As for your first argument, as I see it is a moot point. The freshness of facts don't (or at least shouldn't) matter in their relevancy, since Wikipedia isn't a news or gossip site. A fact is either relevant (i.e., encyclopedic) or it is not, and that status does not change with time. Her resignation was discussed at the time, and the consensus reached was that it was indeed relevant. While you could challenge that consensus and argue that it is not, how much time has passed is immaterial and should not carry any weight.

By 'your colleagues and you let it drop', are you suggesting you personally know Dr. Boze? If you do, then you should consider if editing her page does not entail in a conflict of interests. At any rate, I'm not sure how your personal habits or policies are relevant to this? (And I mean this honestly, with no intention of sounding harsh)

Again, since Wikipedia is not a news site, how recent a fact is bear no weight in it's relevancy. Her resignation was placed on her page from day one not because it was fresh or newsworthy, but because it was relevant. And unless the old consensus is successfully challenged, argued and overturned, it will remain so. Regarding the broken links, I have just tested them and only one isn't working. I'll give it a day, and if it doesn't come back online I'll substitute it.

My edits are not focused primarily on her. It may seem so, because: 1) the entry in question was repeatedly removed, and every time I had to go an reinsert it, giving the wrong impression that there were many edits and inflating its proportion in my total edits. If you take a close look, youll realize it was actually just on entry. And 2) I hardly ever remember to log in before making an edit, but given the contentious nature of that article, I make a point to only edit it logged in, further inflating its proportion to my other edits.

I want to go on record making it clear that I am in no way personally connected to Dr. Boze. I do not know her personally, nor do I have any personal opinion on her. In fact, until I read her article in this site I had never heard of her before. I am not insisting on this matter out of any grievance or indeed any personal motivation whatsoever. I simply realized she (or people related to her) were using this site for personal and biased promotion. That was made clear by the wording, the tone, the selectivity of facts, and most of all, by the fact the single negative piece of information was systematically and aggressively erased. And all it takes is a look at the article's talk page to confirm I am not the only one who thinks so.

Every day, scores of individuals and corporations attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform for agenda-advancement, specially by whitewashing their pages. And every time they succeed in doing so, Wikipedia's reputation, credibility, objectives are damaged and tarnished. While I am not a particularly prolific editor, I do care about Wikipedia, and I won't keep my arms crossed while this is done before my eyes.

Uuchie (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your civil response

I was not suggesting that we or I know her, only that this was discussed widely about six months ago in the context of neutrality, etc. with several senior Wikipedia editors involved (I forget their exact titles, as I am not one).

We obviously disagree with how newsworthy or encyclopedic this information is. I post many stories about university officials involved in athletic scandals, policy violations (discrimination, sexual harassment), DWI, expense account irregularities, etc.

All are news at the time. And virtually everyone who leaves a college or university presidency has a story. Some are made more public than others. But unless they are convicted (not just talked about) something particularly egregious (financial misconduct, sex crimes) the relevancy and importance of their departure dwindles with time. It is my impression that this is what has happened here.

The story was posted (admittedly off and on) for a year and a half, discussed on various talk pages (including her talk page where you made another entry) and at least tacitly agreed that it was considered neutral without it. My concern during that discussion was less about "beating a dead horse" but about the amount of personal, non-encyclopedic information. That removed, I could support the removal of the neutrality tag.

So while this is a colorful piece, and may seem like a big story to you, there was no arrest or detention, no charges or no conviction. In terms of encyclopedia worthiness, there is no violence, no DWI, no underage relationship, no illegal drugs, no financial impropriety and no one harmed. Perhaps it more closely resembles the inappropriate relationship or firing a popular coach. A story at the time, but not something you would find in Who's Who or an old fashioned print encyclopedia.

I agree that we disagree, but my personal decision was to let it drop. It has been debated and put to rest and it does have some appearance of being personal and/or malicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.214.212 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)