User talk:Siberian36

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello Siberian36! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- y'am'can (wtf?) 13:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

[edit] ARU

That would be a complaint to take up with The Times. As for here, a rinking from the paper should be included in the article, and making a judgement as to the reasoning behind the rating would violate WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Let's just hope that our beloved school does better next year. y'am'can (wtf?) 17:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments about the signature, I did not know. This year Sunday Times classification makes no sense in regards of Anglia Ruskin and I think it arm the school to publicize unjustified ranking. The article does not discuss any reason for this arbitrary ranking.

The university has made substantial investment in the last 5 years and most experts are positives about all the change occurring the and progress made recently. The school will be evaluated again in 2008 by the UK QAA and we should wait when the report is public prior making any false judgments on the school. This is armful not only for the school but also for the graduates and the students.

I think we should add the following text that will integrate some more information:

Recent evaluation discrepancies were noted. The Guardian University Guide 2008 ranked Anglia Ruskin 72nd of 119 institutions in UK, a gain of 32 places compared to last year ranking.[1]. However, The Sunday Times University Guide ranked Anglia Ruskin 123 over 123 institutions and the The Times Good University Guide ranking was 104 over 123 institutions.[2]. The Sunday Times University Guide rely heavily on the undergraduate student evaluation performed annually. Anglia Ruskin fared "comparatively badly" mainly due to poor ratings for teaching organisation and management.

Thank you for your consideration.--Siberian36 (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signing comments

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 username or IP address 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. y'am'can (wtf?) 17:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)