User talk:Cyril2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your edits to York University

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. - Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 05:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your request for arbitration

I am a Clerk for the Arbitration Committee. Your request for arbitration concerning University of Toronto Faculty of Law cannot be acted upon at this time because you have not done the following:

Indicated the specific other user(s) with whom you have a dispute;
Indicated what steps, if any, you took to try to resolve the dispute before pursuing arbitration.

Arbitration is the final step in our dispute resolution processes. It deals primarily with complaints of user misconduct rather than deciding what information should or should not be included in articles. Please pursue these other steps as appropriate before bringing the matter to arbitration. I see that you have already taken the first step by noting your concern about editing of the article on its talkpage, but you have just done this today and need to allow some time for other editors to respond.

Please also note as a minor point that posts on talk pages should be signed with four tildes (like this: ~~~~) which will display your username and the date/time. Below this message I am leaving you a greeting with some additional information about editing Wikipedia. Good luck with your future editing! Newyorkbrad 16:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please follow the dispute resolution process before filing an arbitration case. You begin by discussing the disputed edits on the article talk page. You can ask for opinions from uninvolved editors through third opinion and requests for comment. If the problem persists, there are several forms of mediation available. Arbitration only addresses long-term problems of user behavior and does not handle disputes over article content. Thank you. Thatcher131 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Cyril2006, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Newyorkbrad 16:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Osgoode Hall Law School

Just wanted to let you know, since you re-added the bold I removed from your edits, the rule is that bold is only to be used for the restatement of the article name in the header paragraph. Lexicon (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you pleas reference each new addition, please? The article is already lacking in sources, so we need to improve it more than just adding unsubstantiated claims. Also, you need to understand this is an encyclopedia and has to be written from a neutral point of view, so bragging has to be kept out of articles, stating things in an overly-pushy way, and generally making the article look like an advertisement for Osgoode is simply not acceptable. Lexicon (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Most selective law school in Canada"

Regarding the anon's changing of your addition that OHLS is the most selective law school in Canada, I think I agree with him. First, you still haven't provided a reference for the fact, so unless it comes soon, it will have to be removed altogether, and second, I don't believe it to be true. It is much more difficult to get into the U of T Faculty of Law, or at least it was three years ago when I applied. If you can come up with verifiable sources to make your claim, feel free to change it back to "the most selective", but, honestly, without proper sources, we shouldn't even really be claiming that it is "one of the most selective". Lexicon (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your attempt to fix the problem is certainly not good enough: "considered to be the most selective law school in Canada by many lawyers and jurists in North America and Europe" is still completely uncited (and, in fact, seems to be unable to be cited—you'd need a poll of North American and European lawyers and jurists to make such a claim). When editors insert claims like this, it is standard practice to require proper verifiable citations. Otherwise, articles on schools and the like would be filled with "we're the best at this, we're the best at that" type of statements. Please try to keep this in mind as you continue to edit the article. Lexicon (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your removal of the {{fact}} template from Osgoode Hall Law School

Removal of "^{[citation needed]}" templates when citations are clearly needed could be construed as vandalism and/or an attempt to push a POV against the clear policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V. Please do not remove the template again. If the sentence is not sourced soon (and I doubt that it can or will be) it will be removed entirely. I am going to make the assumption that you are also a student of OHLS, so you should understand the necessity of citing your sources when making a statement of "fact". Judges don't go "Oh, okay, I'll take your word on that" when you say something contentious. Lexicon (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, you can't avoid Wikipedia's rules by editing as an IP. Lexicon (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Osgoode again:

(most notably the Osgoode-NYU LL.B./JD degree)

Removed because it is the header paragraph, which is supposed to simply summarize (it is explained lower down)

In addition, a large number of judges at all levels of court in Canada were graduates of the Osgoode Hall Law School.

I assume the same can be said for any other law school, and even if not, it's not sourced. This is the definition of fluff. Removed.

This is on their website.

So source it properly.

a fact which requires a citation despite the fact that everyone in Canada knows this yet it is not taken as judicial notice which is ridiculous,

What's ridiculous is that you think you can avoid simple attribution rules. Please do not comment on sourcing within an article. Removed.

in a similar fashion to McGill University Faculty of Law

Irrelevant.

The current admissions policy as stated on the Osgoode website is to expedite attractive applications with GPA's above 3.5 and LSAT scores at the 85th percentile and above due to efficiency requirements, followed by a review of selected applications which are attractive regardless of the LSAT score.

Source it properly.

Osgoode has traditionally placed more value on GPA and strength of prior academic programs than on the LSAT since it originally derived it's program from the British system which to this day does not require standardized testing for admission to a professional law program. This does not mean however, that a law degree from the University of Oxford for example, is not competitive.

Sounds like original research, is unsourced, and isn't terribly relevant either. Gone.

Lexicon (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to the Schulich School of Business

Hello, I am consolidating the rankings for the Schulich School of Business into tabular format. While it makes it easier for readers to see the rankings and to discover trends, it does eliminate things such as "1st place in Canada." I'm not sure of the value of calling out the school's position within Canada. However, I know that to some people, stature within Canada is very important and wanted to give you a chance to respond before making the edit. Would you mind if I removed your ranking and consolidated it into the table?

I also added a reference to the ranking you posted.Dtorgerson 17:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Zahir Lalani

A tag has been placed on Zahir Lalani, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Tckma 23:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Carol Hansell

A tag has been placed on Carol Hansell, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A1.

[edit] Speedy deletion of Mamdouh Shoukri

A tag has been placed on Mamdouh Shoukri, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A1.

[edit] Sources

Hi, I just noticed you added a bunch of biased statements to a number of articles. Looking ar your contribs, I noticed it's not the first time you do this. Could you please provide a source for your statements? These are the changes I'm referring to:

I added {{fact}} tags to both changes, but they should probably be removed if left unsourced as per WP:SOAP and WP:SOURCE. Cheers, dockingman^talk 02:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, regarding the comment you left on my talk page diff, that sounds perfectly reasonable and that would make your statements hold, but can you cite reliable sources that state that? One of the principles of Wikipedia is to have no original research, meaning that everything published should be verifiable by sources cited and not subject to your interpretation. So, if those facts you added are published anywhere, or commented in any kind of reliable sources, please add them to the corresponding articles. Otherwise, that type of biased comments should not appear on an encyclopedia. Cheers! -- dockingman^talk 01:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: PS feel free to add the sources yourself so that this non-stereotypical fact about York University is part of the peoples' information. Otherwise it leaves the wiki project to be little more than repetition of stereotypes. It seems that the most obvious and easily sourced information is the only thing that ends up in wikipedia so no new perspectives appear. The "peoples" project is manned by people whose views are so forged by existing stereotypes from established non wiki sources that it has become redundant. They spend time adding things to U of T or McGill but never to York or other lesser known schools. ~~Cyril2006~~

[edit] Edit summaries

Hi, I noticed that you consistently do not use the edit summaries. Please do, as it makes other editor's job much easier, especially when browsing through the history of an article. Cheers, dockingman^talk 03:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Roger Pulwarty

A tag has been placed on Roger Pulwarty requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Caesura ^(t) 01:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Elizabeth Bradley (professor)

A tag has been placed on Elizabeth Bradley (professor) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

[edit] Speedy deletion of Carol Hansell

A tag has been placed on Carol Hansell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

[edit] Speedy deletion of Zahir Lalani

A tag has been placed on Zahir Lalani requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

[edit] Re: speedy deletion

Well, in effect, I did request them to be rewritten, by notifying you of the situation on your talk page. I didn't rewrite them myself because the subject did not interest me. Nonetheless, Wikipedia's prominence makes it important that we deal with copyright problems swiftly, and speedy deletion is one vehicle through which we do that. Sorry about putting the same message on your talk page four times in a row. It's a standard template message, which I probably should have personalized to avoid the unfriendly effect it created. —Caesura ^(t) 02:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My "Negative Bias"

Read below what I have written to another Wikipedian, Ckatz:

How would you delineate information about Schulich? What is SSoB info and what is not? If one judges the entire university, then Schulich is also being judged. Schulich plus a little something that is not Schulich, right? As for me, I prefer not to throw the baby out with the bath water, so I include rankings of York University and note them as such. That information is certainly about Schulich. For sure. The SSoB is not a wholly independent institution.

What about a ranking of one narrow aspect of Schulich. If one contends that ranking York is not "specifically" ranking Schulich, then one would be hard-pressed to argue that a ranking of, say, the environmental-consciousness of the school deserves inclusion. Is such a narrow lens any way to judge Schulich as a whole? That would be Schulich LESS a little something, would it not? That is a sure thing, too.

So, what is and what is not information about the Schulich School of Business? I say, let's put in ALL relevant info from these diverse rankings and let the readers pick what they want to read. Having said that, my true preference is to EXCLUDE all rankings. They have a commercial effect and go against what Wikipedia is about. [We don't include results from the Pepsi Challenge, do we?] Ranking info ought to be added to the Wikipage about the MBA degree itself. Anyhow, I am resigned to the fact that people want to see these numbers on the individual pages.

At least we can separate the comprehensive rankings, that include many criteria, from the overly-narrow rankings or broad (university-wide) ones. It has to be all or nothing; otherwise, the self-interested yahoos come on to pick and choose whatever info shows their school in the best light. Not very Wiki, eh. By the way, some argue that it is impossible to determine what is comprehensive and what is not. OK, a grey zone exists, but that does not mean black and white do not exist. Often it is Very Clear. We can always have a congenial discussion about the delineation of rankings based on a few rather than many criteria. Yet, some rankings have just one! Others, like the Macleans' work investigated dozens of criteria and are clearly comprehensive.

Years ago, all the rankings were of the comprehensive, apples-versus-apples quality. Then schools and (not-so-famous) publications started to get wise to the possibilities of serving their own interests. The increased quantity of rankings can dilute and distort the impact of famous rankings. Famous or not -whatever- I say include them ALL with a bit of organisation (to fight the dilution) and context (to fight distortion).

i'm ok with having no rankings on wiki but as is obvious rankings are everywhere on wikipedia so every school has a right to put them up in a manner consistent with other schools. if there is no such protocol then any ranking of that school can be put up. Challenging the validity of a ranking is a matter for a separate page and indeed there is such a page (Canadian university rankings). However, a ranking of the whole university is not a ranking of a the business school housed by that university. If you want to summarize what the ranking was mainly about go ahead. I didn't edit those comments. cheers, Cyril.

When YOU write that I want to create a negative bias against the school, I have to pause and relect a moment.

In fact, I am proud that you think I am biased. Your criticism is a badge of honour for me. Your edits speak for themselves and so do mine. Sorry if you take that as an insult. COYW (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Uh...actually I don't really care what you think of me. Don't put the maclean's survey ranking on the schulich page for the reason i cited originally. I don't know you and don't need to, no offence. Just trying to keep the pages clean. thanks for you cooperation. cheers, Cyril.

[edit] Speedy deletion of Annemarie Morais

A tag has been placed on Annemarie Morais requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ^Writer _Listener 03:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to York University has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 04:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to York University. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. You should also try to avoid excessive reverting, especially without discussion, as you will run afoul of the revert guidelines. Thank you. Ckatz^chat_spy 05:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry buds but putting a reference to "canadian university rankings" that is already a wiki article can't be unencyclopedic. Please do not turn this into a needless power struggle and leave valid information up. I hope you don't feel the need to remove it since ultimately that will be more biased than anything else. Thank you. ~~Cyril2006~~

[edit] Annmarie Morais / Annemarie Morais

Hi, I merged the article Annemarie Morais that you created with Annmarie Morais, which was a pre-existing article, not a stub, and appeared to have the correct spelling according to the IMDB. I left a redirect on Annemarie Morais pointing to the correct article. Cheers! dockingman^talk 23:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks.

[edit] Speedy deletion of Kenneth McRoberts

A tag has been placed on Kenneth McRoberts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to University of Toronto. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Johnny Au (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

See also this edit where you make a personal attack on a fellow editor and put it in the article itself. You should know better than to disrupt mainspace articles in this way, please don't do it again. Franamax (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Franamax, instead of using this as an opportunity to chastise me, why don't you try reading the actual history of COYW's edits to york/schulich and decide whether it is appropriate. If you don't think he is a biased agitator and think his edits to york rankings should stand then I can only suggest bringing in a mediator.

Please sign your talk page posts by adding four tildes "~~~~" after your comments.
Sorry, I don't buy the "they made me do it!" angle. You don't question another editor's mental state, that's a personal attack. You certainly don't do it on an article page on an encyclopedia read by millions of people. You make the whole project look silly. Keep your own actions above reproach and you will get more sympathy when problems arise.
Looking at the Schulich page, I see an edit and talkpage war between two tenacious editors (wherein you again allege that COYW has psychological problems) and I see CKatz stepping in to sort it out.
As far as York U, I see four edits by COYW, adding sourced material. If you have a problem with those, the York U talk page is the first stop, I watch that page and will be happy to comment there. Incidentally, I put a question of my own there a month ago, I notice you haven't felt the need to comment, so I assume you agree wioth me.

Anyway, no matter how another editor behaves, don't adjust your behaviour downwards to match. Your only responsibility is yourself. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't patronize me. I was right to intervene with COYW and his psych issues over york. he's the one who should be watched not me. just because he uses the technical rules correctly and i don't bother doesn't make him right. i dont' have the time or energy to deal with the bullshit from him or anyone else but i'll keep intervening in the york page if bullshit such as COYW's comes up. goodnight.

I'm not trying to patronize you, sorry if it comes across that way. I was actually trying to help you, seriously, if an admin came across the edit I pointed out, I think you would get hauled up short. Don't worry about it though, the way you act here is entirely up to you.

Anyway, I've gone all through the York U rankings section and referenced everything (some other editors popped up there and the whole thing was a mess). I couldn't find any THES ranking placing York 85th worldwide, so I had to also modify the change you made in the lead. If you can find that reference, all the better. Please look over the changes I've made and hopefully note on the talk page if you have any concerns. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFComment

Hi Cyril, you're engaged at York University, I'd really appreciate your opinions on this question. I think my stance is clear, the integrity of the York U article is best served by distinguishing the pre- and post-1969 OHLS alumni. I'd be interested in your perspective, then I'm thinking of posting at WP:CWNB and some of the more university-oriented Canapedians for some more input. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Cyril2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Your edits to York University

[edit] Your request for arbitration

[edit] Welcome

[edit] Edits to Osgoode Hall Law School

[edit] "Most selective law school in Canada"

[edit] Your removal of the {{fact}} template from Osgoode Hall Law School

[edit] Osgoode again:

[edit] Edits to the Schulich School of Business

[edit] Speedy deletion of Zahir Lalani

[edit] Speedy deletion of Carol Hansell

[edit] Speedy deletion of Mamdouh Shoukri

[edit] Sources

[edit] Edit summaries

[edit] Speedy deletion of Roger Pulwarty

[edit] Speedy deletion of Elizabeth Bradley (professor)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Carol Hansell

[edit] Speedy deletion of Zahir Lalani

[edit] Re: speedy deletion

[edit] My "Negative Bias"

[edit] Speedy deletion of Annemarie Morais

[edit] February 2008

[edit] Annmarie Morais / Annemarie Morais

[edit] Speedy deletion of Kenneth McRoberts

[edit] May 2008

[edit] RFComment

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search