Talk:Beta Theta Pi/Archive 1

Archive 1

2006 comment on early version

this is the shittiest wikipedia page ever Every single other wiki entry on fraternities and sororities contains all of the same types of information. If you are going to delete the history and other bits of information that provide people with answers about what Beta Theta Pi is then you need to do so for every other greek organization on this board. The information in this entry is simply information about the history and background of this organization. Just like just about every other entry on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rrude (talk • contribs) 15:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If you think that putting copyrighted in quotes makes it less a serious legal offense to plagiarize someone else's material you are wrong. What I did was to remove a threat to the legal standing of the Wikimedia Foundation as you seem to have an insistence on trying to host and display illegally copied material on our servers. The information in this entry is simply copyrighted information about the history and background of this organization. If you care so strongly about having it included, which for the record I think should happen as it is a notable organization, then you must rewrite it in your own words and not violate the expressly stated (at the bottom of the website you copy&pasted from) copyright of the Beta Theta Pi Fraternity. Aside from the relevant laws regarding copyright in the State of Florida, United States, and whichever jurisdiction you happen to be editing from, it is also a violation of Wikipedia policy found at Wikipedia:Copyrights. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 19:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Arturo Ritti's vandalism of various articles

I have moved this section to my own user page. Nova SS 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Lay/Skilling Controversy

Can we just agree to put them under an "infamous" category and use my revision? I have no problem separating them out and explaining (briefly) what they did, but 1) assigning various adjectives like "fraudster" and the like is not "encycopaedic", 2) labelling them as "Beta Criminals" is unfair (which is what the section name "Criminals" does, though their actions have nothing to do with the fraternity), and 3) it would seem more appropriate to set them aside in their own category because they're now more famous for their notoriety than being famous Betas in "Business."

Also, so we're all clear, I am a Beta and I don't see this as a cheerleading page; I also believe this is supposed to be as NPOV as possible. Age or whatever, the first revision was entirely unacceptable by Wikipedia standards, and the removal of the section entirely was equally unacceptable. We're adults here. Let's get over this and make the page better and, most importantly at this stage, NPOV'd.

By the way, could you both get user names please? I hate "anonymous" revisions. Pat 19:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a convicted sex offender in the list of prominent Betas along with a couple of alcoholics, people who have been convicted of speeding and a couple of homosexuals (not that there is anything wrong with that). The point is is that those individuals are not "described" by those things as is trying to be done to Skilling and Lay. The criminal conduct should be addressed on their pages but not here. It has nothing to do with explaining Beta Theta Pi. Rrude 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• So that everyone can take a breather, DO NOT remove the "Infamous" section. It's an entirely appropriate section, and if it is removed, this revert war will only grow. Embrace the fact that they're convicted, let it be noted, and move on. Otherwise, this is going to become an outright-vandalized page, and we don't need that. Sheath your swords, and if you have discussion on this matter, put it here.-- Pat 07:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Pat, do you know how to request mediation on this issue? I'm fairly new to all this and just don't see that this is going to be resolved without some help. This page is being threatened with vandalization and that is simply not necessary. It appears that someone has a personal issue with these two individuals and is simply using wikipedia and all the pages associated with these two as his personal playground. The bottom line is what is appropriate information on a page and what isn't. By all means the pages devoted solely to Skillings and Lay should have all the information on it. But simply an association with an organization or a school many, many years ago should have little to do with the page. Thoughts??? Rrude 15:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, this Arturo Ritti guy (the one who is on an Enron agenda and edits with 80.4.x.x. IPs) is repeatedly vandalizing the Southern Methodist University home page with his invectives or commentaries about Jeffrey Skilling. I have allowed him to use the descriptions "convicted felon" and "former" on Skilling, and I am allowing him to move Skilling to an "Other" sub-section. However, I am not allowing him to take it further because he clearly has an agenda and is being highly POV. I am not allowing him to add "disgraced" because it repeats what us already implied by the combination of "former" and "convicted felon". I am also not allowing him to add a sub-section of notable alumni called "Infamous" because the sections are about one's profession, not one's place in life. Nova SS 14:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Can anything be done to get him to stop vandalizing the site while on this personal and pointless crusade? Rrude 21:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Just make sure multiple authors are watching, and revert him every time. Nova SS 22:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply! When worse comes to worst, users can request that a page be protected. We requested semi-protection here because the problem was with an unregistered user. Full protection disables all edits to the page. Hope this helps! Pat 04:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thus far it appears he is using the following IPs:

• 80.41.127.153
• 80.41.113.114
• 208.251.56.210

All of this is made clear by his repeated declaring that one must call him on the phone to get him to stop and all three accounts put forth the same number to call. IrishGuy 22:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this "Pat" guy has the best motives/intentions. For good or for bad, Beta Theta Pi ended up with two notorious criminals in its ranks. But this is just the law of averages working - probably every fraternity has swindlers in its honor roll. The question here is, why doesn't anybody want to point it out. Probably because this is a cheerleading page, controlled by Betas. But Pat didn't seem too fazed by it. Again, I have no problem with discussing this with anybody. But nobody seems to either have the balls or the nickel so far. So, until then, let the games continue. Betathetapi545

User:Betathetapi545 is a serial vandal. (See User:Novasource for more info). His vandalism should be reverted immediately. He is not a member of Beta Theta Pi despite what his username implies. He thrives on making changes here to push his own point of view and agenda.