Talk:Ontario Universities' Application Centre

Fees

I personally think that OUAC charges way too much for applications for Canadian students outside of Ontario. 154.5.60.131 (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for you to voice your opinion on this matter (see WP:FORUM). Xxcom9a (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The OUAC is a not-for-profit that is fully funded through application and contract revenues. The OUAC operates on a cost-recovery basis, and any excess revenue is transferred to the universities. More than three-quarters of the fees collected from undergraduate applications and all supplementary fees from professional and undergraduate applications are transferred to the universities in support of their admissions processing costs. This is where the supplementary fees for non-Ontario applicants come in and these fee costs are specified by the individual universities, not the OUAC. --CarlaWhite (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Follow-up

I tried contributing to this article in December 2012 from a publication I created for non-public consumption for the OUAC's 40th anniversary. The content was deleted, quoting copyright infringement, and I was also deemed to be an editor with a Conflict of Interest (COI) due to the fact that I work at the OUAC. I had edited the additions and spent a great deal of time formatting and submitting to this article, so I asked the editor who brought this to my attention to return the content to me. I also asked how I could go about getting the wikipedia article edited, if not by me due to the COI, but I never received a reply.

I'm asking again for this article to be expanded upon - some of the information is outdated ("Compass") and could also be explained further. I believe that the priority of adding to this article is more important than deemed by WP:Canada as it is not just an organization/service within Ontario. It serves the entire world as the OUAC accepts applications for Canadian and international students for many forms of university education.

I don't believe the COI applies to me. I am not out to promote the OUAC or gain anything, save for providing accurate information and a more robust history on the organization. However, if it is still deemed inappropriate for me to be the editor of this article, please let me know how I can have someone else expand on the information. I'd be happy to provide the information for re-writing. Thanks.CarlaWhite (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on the way that WP:COI is written, I agree with you, but let me be very clear - you have a potential COI situation simply because you work at OUAC. Now, is that a problem? Not necessarily, as long as your editing remains unbiased. I urge you to read WP:COI if you haven't done so already, and please ensure you also understand Wikipedia:Copyright violations. I have added OUAC to my watchlist; please add good information to it and I'll try to keep things balanced. I will also add this comment to the article's talk page. PKT(alk) 00:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand, and I have read the WP:COI page already and the Wikipedia:Copyright violations page, in addition to some other pages of interest. I understand the situation and will be working closely with co-workers on my Communications team to ensure unbiased editing and good information. Thank you for the response and your assistance. CarlaWhite (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: you cannot copy text from any external document, even one you created, to Wikipedia. You may grant explicit permission for use of content you've created externally by using a free licence (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA). Please see Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team for details about how to do this, but understand that this material may then be copied by anyone for any purpose they choose. Mindmatrix 19:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, My Communications team made every effort not to copy directly from our publications and I believe the information was re-worded for this page. It was also sourced only to show where the information originates. If there were sections that you feel were directly copied and pasted, it was a mistaken oversight, but I'd appreciate knowing exactly which sections you think are in direct copyright violation as I don't believe the entire page is. Thanks. CarlaWhite (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'll check it again soon; for my earlier edit, I checked one sentence at random against a search on Google, which resulted in the document I noted in my edit summary. Mindmatrix 19:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the text. I haven't checked it all, and some of what I checked has close paraphrasing. This can be remedied fairly easily, so I'll leave it for now. Mindmatrix 21:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to look at it again. I can definitely fix the parts that are closely paraphrased and have a closer look at the text. Thanks again. CarlaWhite (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe we've remedied those that you felt were closely paraphrased, but please let me know if anything still looks amiss. I would hate for this article to be removed without question again in the future and do want to ensure we're following all the Wikipedia rules. Thanks for your assistance and patience. CarlaWhite (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)