Shahroze

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Enterprise Square in downtown Edmonton.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Enterprise Square in downtown Edmonton.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Majora (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of TEC Edmonton

Hello Shahroze,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged TEC Edmonton for deletion in response to your request.

If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

SamHolt6 (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of TEC Edmonton for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TEC Edmonton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TEC Edmonton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No need to warn me, I want you guys to delete it. The level of harassment and threats I've received from the editors is unreal and frankly shocking. Please just get rid of it and spare me the headache.

January 2018

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Shahroze. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of Calgary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Wong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:BOOST interpretation

Can you please discuss on respective UK university talk pages before removing such lead content? In most cases this is a consensus reached by a number of users. If you look back through the talk pages you will find these discussions. Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Several editors and I have been removing information violating WP:BOOST for dozens of University articles. I think the onus should be on you to build a case for why you support such information being displayed within the opening of an article. I'd like to draw your attention to the opening paragraphs of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and University of Toronto for comparison.

Shahroze (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The onus should be editors to reach a consensus. If you would like to start a discussion at WP:UNI that would be appreciated. Bear in mind WP:BOOST is not a policy, see the top header. "This page is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines" Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Leventio Want to help me out here?

@Aloneinthewild: Not sure what the edits in question are, but with regards to WP:BOOST, it is not one of the policies or guidelines listed in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines (those policies and guidelines generally have a much wider scope, whereas this is clearly limited). However, in saying that, WP:BOOST is a guideline that is in itself, crafted by the participants of WP:UNI (which is why the WikiProject's laid out "article guidelines," extensively reference it). Its not a site-wide policy, but this is a collaborative project built on consensus. And the related project has developed a general guideline to how it believes post-secondary articles should be laid out. If you have a problem with the article layout (and its associated guidelines) WP:UNI has laid out, I'd suggest you bring it up with the WikiProject's talk page.

Also to Shahroze, you need to use {{ping|Username}} to notify me (honestly just stubled on this random, I wasn't notified of a message). Leventio (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe I left a WP:COI message with Shahroze before and this conversation seems to support this. An editing pattern of removing cited contents from other universities' articles while at the same time positively editing and creating articles around universities in Calgary raises certain questions about the intention. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I can see why you may think that, but you will note that I have been adding content to and managing the University of Calgary article for over 9 years. In that time, I have abided by the rules that have been outlined pertaining to academic institution articles. Furthermore, I have also edited information on several other universities, including the U of Alberta and UBC, both universities which I once had associations with. You can check my edit history and note that I removed information from these articles that could be violating WP:BOOST (i.e. "negatively editing"). I know that many Wikipedia editors such as yourself love to throw out accusations without conducting a full background review, and I hope I've cleared this matter up. Shahroze (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this is down to interpretation. I'm not sure that the wikiproject has edited this essay recently, none of the editors I recognise and I am an active member of the project. I would be more likely to follow WP:UNIGUIDE, again not a guideline. In WP:UNIGUIDE#Rankings it does not explicitly say do not include rankings in the lead, rather In the lead, do not use rankings to synthesize an image of the institution, whether good or bad. Give one factual statement summarising overall "most recent" rankings obtained in key surveys - which these articles were doing. Happy to discuss further with wikiproject members though Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited University of Calgary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Incubator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)