Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits, such as the one you made to University of Western Ontario, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Phrases like the one you've added are considered academic boosterism. They're already contained in a referenced format elsewhere in the article. -- Chabuk[ T • C ]03:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Second, no, it's not an attempt to "play down" UWO, but that language is considered boosterism. This exact discussion has been had a dozen times before. The other articles, take McGill for example, don't say "is one of the best schools in Canada" or something like that, it lists the verifiable statistics, linking to the ranking's own sites. Not to mention that the fact that you've apparently taken that line right out of Western's own materials may be copyright violation. -- Chabuk[ T • C ]04:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I did unlink "Old Four". The Old Four is a soccer tournament, not an academic organization. Linking to it in the lead is misleading... it implies that it has something to do with the age of the institution besides happenstance. -- Chabuk[ T • C ]04:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
McGill's article states; "The university ranked first among Canadian medical-doctoral universities in Maclean's 2006 University Rankings issue for the second year in a row,[1] and is among the top 25 universities in the world according to the 2006 Times Higher Education Supplement.[2]" U of T's Article similarly states that; "A 2006 university ranking by Newsweek International ranks the University of Toronto number-one in Canada, 18th worldwide, and 5th outside of the United States.[1] Similar academic rankings consistently place the university among the world's best.[2][3]" Notice how there are a number of references in each of those sentences, which provides verifiable information, unlike your sentence; "consistently ranks among the top 5 in Macleans". This has been discussed before, having the discussion again isn't going to change Wikipedia consensus. -- Chabuk[ T • C ]05:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm a McGill student, though I'm not sure how that's at all relevant. Your edit is not at all similar to either U of T's or McGill's equivalent sentence. Furthermore, you'll notice that someone else reverted your edit this time, not me. I'd appreciate it if you didn't attempt to falsely label me as biased unless you have some proof. As I've shown you, my reverts are perfectly in line wikipedia policy and consensus on University articles. You are the one adding PoV to articles, not me. I'm supported by other editors, not you. Also, please don't add a horizontal line everytime you make a comment, it's quite unnecessary. -- Chabuk[ T • C ]05:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so because I go to one school, I'm automatically biased against every other university in the country? That's quite the assumption, not to mention contrary to wikipedia policy. I guess since I live in Montreal, I also can't edit the articles about any other city, town or province in Canada, right? Wrong. Please read the wikipedia policy on assuming good faith and no personal attacks. I've been editing Canadian university articles for over a year now and am a member of the Canadian Education wikiproject. I repeatedly removed your line (and will continue to do so) because it is not consistent with wikipedia policy. Seriously, I'm just trying to help you understand how this site works. It is not somewhere that you can make unilateral decisions. This is a consensus agreed to by a large number of editors, you swooping in and trying to ignore that is not appreciated by anyone. -- Chabuk[ T • C ]15:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Second, I did fix your sentence, made it conform to a neutral PoV and cited it appropriately. Yet you insist on re-adding generalized repeat information. Please stop linking "oldest" to "old four" as the link is extremely misleading, and do not put the general, weasel worded sentence back into the opener. The rankings are now included in the lead section (3rd paragraph). FYI, McGill does not have a rivalry with Western at all, and even if it did, my edits, unlike yours, have been perfectly in line with Wiki policy. Please refrain from ignoring the rules. -- Chabuk[ T • C ]19:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't start any "mess", I fixed your mistake by making it conform to Wikipedia policy. This site doesn't work if people do whatever they want. If you want to contribute, you need to do so according to policy, as I do. I didn't go on a "deleting spree", I happen to be in the middle of exams and didn't have time to make the changes necessary. The information isn't integral to the article as a whole, so I deleted it rather than allow weasel words to sit in the article -- Chabuk[ T • C ]21:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've had enough of this. I'm not going to reply to your personal attacks anymore. I'm going to continue improving articles on Canadian universities, if you have a problem with that, or think I'm biased, I encourage you to bring up the issue with an administrator, who I have no doubt will tell you that I'm right. If you continue to vandalize the UWO article, it will be reported and you'll be blocked.
I just stumbled across your dispute with Chabuk by accident, and thought you might like a third-party to explain why your latest change to University of Western Ontario was likely to have been reverted. The reference you provided rates UWO as 5th highest university for Medicine, not overall (as implied by your edit). I was about to have a go at Chabuk for not just correcting your edit (rather than reverting), but then I noticed that the next paragraph already mentions the Medical ranking (with the same reference). The top paragraph would not be the right place for this claim anyway. I hope that makes sense. MarkChovain03:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what's happened. Immediately after you put the "medical-doctoral" bit in, you've removed it again (a few seconds later). Chabuk has seen the intermediate version, which he's been relatively happy with, and put it back in, but in the second paragraph (a better spot, really, since it's not information that defines the topic).
You've then put it in again, and Chabuk has removed the duplicate entry.
It's best to avoid accusing people of lying on Wikipedia. So often, disputes are just a misunderstanding. The project works much better when people try working together, rather than getting confrontational. MarkChovain04:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Second, no, it's not an attempt to "play down" UWO, but that language is considered boosterism. This exact discussion has been had a dozen times before. The other articles, take McGill for example, don't say "is one of the best schools in Canada" or something like that, it lists the verifiable statistics, linking to the ranking's own sites. Not to mention that the fact that you've apparently taken that line right out of Western's own materials may be copyright violation. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 04:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
