Um. Isn't there some rule that says you are allowed to bring up the same topic on GC every decade or so? :o :( :o

Didn't say you weren't.

Maybe not, but there also aren't any rules about expressing that your trolling really pisses me off, either.

In regards to suspicions, yes, I am on the Fraternities and Sororities Project, right now I am currently involved with fighting off a jackass who is trying to add specific inappropriate things to the Kappa Sigma Page.

If you want to take a look at my Wikipedia pages, checking out the pages I created and continue to expand on Notable Alpha Phi Omega Brothers, Alpha Phi Omega chapters for both the US and the Philippines and for the Alpha Phi Omega Conventions would be a place to start. (I'm on Alpha Phi Omega's National History Committee).

And with the possible exception of the issue when someone claiming to be (correctly but unverifiably) a Gamma Sigma Sigma board member went through and made unreferenced changes to the Gamma Sigma Sigma page to reflect the change in tone from the schools that founded to the organizations that founded, I don't think any of the changes on Wikipedia that I've made have been controversial in a way that members of GLOs would be on the other side...

If I try this question here on GC every nine years, that paper must have a lot of dust on it...

Of the possible reasons listed for why I asked, Dr Phil's

Is the intent a follow-up to that other hazing thread and to convince aspirants that it isn't so bad, afterall, come join us?

is probably closest.

I knew that and it's very, extremely, and unfortunately unfortunate.

I wish that I *had* remembered the posting that I made in 2001, because the information in the quote from Hank Nuwer would have fulfilled my curiosity on that topic.

If curiosity killed the cat, I'd better check my whiskers. :)

I said it was probably closest, but I wouldn't say that it is actually the reason that I asked. Yes, the spark was the question over on the other thread, but the reason is that I asked myself whether or not I had heard of such a thing and couldn't remember, I thought there might be others who did.

Why are you in other groups' pages/business?

Do you monitor every Greek Wiki page to see what is changed and who does it?

You challenged a Gamma Sigma Sigma member - who you said wasn't readily identifiable, because you aren't a member - who updated something on their Wiki page.

As for Kappa Sigma, shouldn't you leave any issues to their members?

What point are you trying to make regarding hazing deaths in sororities? Are you going to speak at convocation for Sorority Recruitment? Write articles on Wikipedia saying that "fraternities and sororities aren't "so bad"? To which audience will you spread your "expertise" (which is not experience-based, rather, a collection of information fed to you)?

Your interest comes across as much more than casual. And that's why it bugs me.

To be fair on the first part, being a member of an org isn't required to edit the wiki. An editing war is less about who knows more about the topic and more about who knows more about the appropriate tone/format for an article. It's not about personal knowledge although that can help.

The rest, well, it is off putting for reasons i can't quite put my finger on.

The only other book I would suggest is "Pledged" but, that seemed more about sensationalism. That is weird, though. It is true. We don't normally hear too much about NPC hazing deaths yet, someone came on here the other day afraid to look at sorority life.

"Pledged" was a work of fiction, right?

But, that doesn't stop the NPC ball from rolling. :)

I know that, but it's the collection of the OP's questions, intrusions and activities that makes me wonder.

*shrug*

Apparently, some of it wasn't. I don't really know and I don't really care, I am just trying to give examples of what the OP could look at. I never said it stopped the NPC ball from rolling.

On wikipedia, no one owns specific pages. A Kappa Sigma brother has just as much right to change the page on Delta Sigma Theta as they do the page on London Bridge or Nitrogen. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ownership_of_articles .

And as for challenging the changes on "Gamma Sigma Sigma", the only info that I had was that the person's username was "GSSmarketing", someone completely unrelated to GSS could have taken that username and the changes were unreferenced. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources and without referenced sources, everyone is a potential Wikipedia Perp.




In fact, one of the tenets of Wikipedia is to avoid Conflict of Interest, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI . In that regard, on controversial topics, members of groups are discouraged from making edits to the pages of their own groups... As a member of a GLO *other* than Kappa Sigma, I'm actually viewed as a relative neutral on the issue.

And monitoring every Greek Letter Organization page neither interests me nor do I have the time for.

If you have issues with the rules on Wikipedia, that's one issue, if you have issues with whether or not my actions on Wikipedia fulfill them, that's another. Just let me know.



In terms of point or audience, If I had gotten a PM saying "According to Hank Nuwer, the only two were UVW sorority in 1952 and XYZ sorority in 1983." I would have considered the question completely answered and not thought anything less of either UVW or XYZ sororities.

Within the last two years, one of the threads that I started was "What do you call your National Officers", or something like that. These two threads both come from personal curiosity and in each case, I would be willing to answer to the best of my abilities the same question about my own fraternity.

I like to think most of it is.