Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Syrthiss (talk | contribs) at 17:44, 31 January 2006 (Do not change closed afd discussions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hi Ardenn! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! karmafist 21:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem, please let me know if I can help you further. karmafist 21:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

They can, but you can put it back as long as there isn't an Edit War. If it's not clear either way, you can discuss it on the talk page and then if that doesn't work, there are a few more steps you can take. I'll tell you what I think now, hopefully we can resolve things now. karmafist 23:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You guys have to prove with facts. And we have already voted 2 months ago on the same information.

Anakinskywalker 23:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Don't use profanity in edit summaries, and be aware of the Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule, which you may already have broken. It doesn't make sense to add and remove tags in rapid succession; adding any such tags should also be justified in the talk page. -- Curps 00:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Curps is right, you have broken it, but so has Anakin, so either both of you will be blocked or neither(usually it's neither). Just don't keep on putting it back up if the disputed status is disputed. I'm sorry I didn't say that more clearly before. This'll be settled eventually, the trick is to be nice about it. karmafist 00:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, if you're nice and he's not, you'll likely get your way.If you're both nasty, it gets more complicated. karmafist 00:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm heading over to WP:AN/I now. There is a way, but it usually takes a gang of admins, and eventually the arbcom, to do so. I'm checking to see if i'm being "unfair" or something due to the welcome possibly making me impartial. karmafist 00:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

RELAX!

Unfortunately, things like this happen all the time. Soon, somebody'll help solve the situation. Ok? Just breathe. Things will be resolved. karmafist 00:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

blocked

I have blocked both of you for 24 hours for 3RR violations and incivility. Jtkiefer ---- 01:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is unfair and unjustified. Ardenn 01:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked you as it does seem a bit harsh and I was unaware of all the circumstances behind this. Jtkiefer ---- 05:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

University of Ottawa

Reviewing the matter in the edit history, my points are as follows:

1. A murder has no inherent bearing on the university's reputation. It's one of those things that just plain happens sometimes — it's happened at most universities in the world at least once — and consequently there's just no particular reason it needs to be noted in the article.
2. The sole link you've provided to support the sexual harassment issue, a letter published in The Fulcrum, provides little to no context about what the root of the controversy is or why anyone outside the university community needs to know about it. Having read through the letter five times now, I understand that the guy is peeved off at something — but the letter assumes knowledge I don't have: namely, what the hell even happened? So it's not a suitable or legitimate external source to support the claim being made.
3. You can't simply state that St. Paul University is homophobic or that its affiliation with the U of O has significantly affected the U of O's external reputation. These are claims that require sources to back them up.
4. Other than that, you're mostly taking issue with wording that's already been discussed and agreed upon on the talk page.

So, in a nutshell: frankly, you haven't made a very convincing case that there is a legitimate dispute to resolve here. If there's a real and valid dispute, then the NPOV tag is supposed to stay on the article until the matter is resolved, but NPOV does not mean "if you guys don't like the stuff I added, then screw you". The tag can be removed if the dispute lacks merit. And to be honest, I don't currently see a whole lot of merit in the dispute you're raising. Bearcat 02:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits

Why did you revert my edit without any explanation? None of my edits were POV, I didn't add anything new, I just cleaned up the poor sentence structure, and excessive unesscessary wording. I added sources to it and you erased it. I only new thing I added was that the University of Ottawa is one of the top research universities in Canada. Seeing how it's ranked "I'm new hear but I have read the wikipeida rules and I have not done anything wrong. Edit and assume good faith.

Economics416 22:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

How is this POVL

"The University of Ottawa is ranked as one of the top research universities in Canada. It is well ranked by the Financial Times, The Princeton Review, the Gourman Report (Ranked within the top 10 universities in Canada), and other International rankings. + Today, it is the oldest and largest bilingual university in North America. The University of Ottawa is well ranked by the Financial Times, The Princeton Review, the Gourman Report (Ranked in the top 10 universities in Canada), and other International rankings."

"The University of Ottawa ranks 7th in research-intensive universities and 8th in total research funding in the country, receiving close to $200 million. The U of O also has the 3rd largest co-operative education program in Canada, with a 95% placement rate."

You have to explain your reseasoning. I can back all this information with sources. This is not POV. You are erasing the information because of your own POV, which is against wikipedia rules. Unless you can prove otherwise, your claims are wrong.

Also, you have reverted it 2 times, be aware that next time you revert you will be violating the 3RR.

Economics416 22:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"The University of Ottawa ranks 7th in research-intensive universities and 8th in total research funding in the country, receiving close to $200 million. The U of O also has the 3rd largest co-operative education program in Canada, with a 95% placement rate."

Why did you erase that for no justifiable reason? How is that is that POV? Those are all facts.

"The University of Ottawa is ranked as one of the top research universities in Canada. It is well ranked by the Financial Times, The Princeton Review, the Gourman Report (Ranked within the top 10 universities in Canada), and other International rankings. Today, it is the oldest and largest bilingual university in North America. The University of Ottawa is well ranked by the Financial Times, The Princeton Review, the Gourman Report (Ranked in the top 10 universities in Canada), and other International rankings"

How is that POV also. Obviously the University is noted for it's research and it's ranked 8th and 9th in reseach in Canada, obviously shows their status as one of the top in the Canada, and for that reason you took that out as well. The rest of the paragraph is also documented by rankings.

Okay, prove it's POV. Show me what I changed is POV with proof.

Economics416 is Anakinskywalker

Note Economics416 uses the exact same style here as Anakin used to use on the U of Ottawa talk page. He is also POV pushing the same stuff. David D. (Talk) 23:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't accuse if you don't have any proof, watch yourself and be respectful of others views. I checked the history, and it seems whenever someone has a conflict on that page, you, and user David D seem to pop up exactly at the same time. I think you two are infact the same user. I will be reporting you if you continue to vandalize my page and personally attacking me. You should really get a life, and stop accusing people who don't know anything about.

Economics416 16:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC

NPOV and merger tags on Anti-Freemasonry

They do belong there since there is an active discussion that is disputing the NPOV status of the article going on on the page's talk. And there is a discussion of merging the 2 articles on the freemason talk page. The tag doesn't say that the page is not NPOV it just says that there is a dispute going on. Removing the tags before the dispute is over is vandalism. Also I realize the tags were removed from the freemasonry page after I added them, however now that another editor agreed with me on the Anti-Freemasonry page, and re-added them after they were removed, i'm going to assert that they should remain untill the discussion on the subject is concluded. Seraphim 03:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There's really nothing to argue, we are using the tags as they are designed to be used. Thanks for agreeing to leave them. Seraphim 03:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

AMA request

Hey Ardenn - You might recognize me from the UoO dispute. I saw your request on the AMA page and would love to help you out. Let me first ask you, however, what exactly you want to have happen, and, far more importantly, why? I have created a page for us to discuss this at User:Hipocrite/AMA/Ardenn - please respond there, and add that page to your watchlist. Hope I can help!Hipocrite - «Talk»

Do not change closed afd discussions

You changed Mark Gallagher's decision on the Kathryn Holloway discussion archive, and I changed it back. The no consensus was his finding. It doesn't matter if you disagree with how it is phrased, that is the official record of the closing admin. --Syrthiss 17:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)