Talk:Michael Lovell/Archive 1

edits about "worst university president" award

This edit, which was undone by Mdriscoll03 for being unconstructive, has been added back twice, once by the same IP address. I want to see this edit discussed. I'm personally not convinced that the reference is a reliable source. The about page mentions that the site aggregates blogs, and to me the page in question looks like an editorial. It's very subjective.

A better place, to me, would be a new Controversies section, with sources of more broad coverage about the controversy(ies) Lovell has been involved with. Though I'm unconvinced the "Sheldon award" merits mention in our encyclopedia. = paul2520 (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Who is to decide what award is from a "reliable source" or not? It is an award nonetheless and thus it belongs in the award section of this page. If you are of the opinion that this award should be under a "Controversies" section, then shouldn't we relabel the awards in a section titled "Complements". October 6, 2017 8:13.

Due to the fact that it has been over a week with no response from the accusers I have restored the post. please respond when it is convenient. October 18, 2017 8:46. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.247.158.163 (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to encourage you to use {{reply to}} in the future, or leave me a note on my talk page. Otherwise, I won't get a notification that you responded.

I removed the content again. This will be my last warning to stop before I ask for admin intervention.

To respond to your questions, explanation of what makes a source reliable is here. It does explain how blogs or user-contributed content are often not reliable. As for your comments about awards, I can't help but link to the article Award. Notably the text, "...in recognition of their excellence..." Someone posting that an individual is the third place "worst" college president is not a recognition of excellence; and very subjective. What is the scale for "worst"? How does the "award" cause any change if it is recognizing bad behavior, policy, etc.?

The reason to avoid a section on "compliments" is because we're an encyclopedia; while it would be nice to document every nice thing someone's said about everyone, that's not factual or newsworthy in the way that reputable organizations officially giving recognition is.

Please do reply to this with any questions. I'm happy to see that you are willing to contribute, but want to ensure that your efforts further the purpose of our encyclopedia. We don't want to unfairly disparage people in their bios. (but my previous comments still stand - if a Controversies section is merited and reputable news sources are cited, then we should by all means do that!) = paul2520 (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for not using the "Reply To" link (I do not know how to use it). I would agree with your definition of awards as the recognition of excellence in a given subject. While the definition of excellence is shown on Google as being "the quality of being outstanding or extremely good." This does not mean that the thing you are being awarded for is good but merely that you are good at doing whatever it is you are being awarded for. As such, Michael Lovell has been awarded for excellence at being one of the worst college presidents in the United States. Please feel free to get an administrator involved if you feel it necessary. I understand that both you and I are biased in our views due to the fact that you are in fact a subordinate of Michael Lovell, and I being an alum of the university. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter. I hope we can come to an agreeable outcome. October 28, 2017 11:07am (CST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cfc8:13c0:8de4:162:3fc7:3ced (talk)

Comment I agree that the currently cited source does not meet our guidelines. This should not be re-added until/unless a consensus supporting it is reached or alternatively one or more independent secondary reliable sources can be cited. As of right now I'd view this as running afoul of WP:BLP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Ad Orientem.

I do want to clarify (per the previous comments) that I am not "a subordinate of Michael Lovell". I am a Marquette University alumni, hence why subjects about or relating to the university are of interest to me. = paul2520 (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Just please be aware that we have guidelines covering what material can and cannot be included in articles. And all claims of fact that are not obviously non-controversial need to be cited to one or more reliable sources. Those rules are applied even more stringently applied when the subject is a living or recently deceased person. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Lovell. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120716132329/http://webster.engr.pitt.edu/industrial/pages/faculty_ml.html to http://webster.engr.pitt.edu/industrial/pages/faculty_ml.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 03:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)