User talk:AccuratEdit

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Concordia University, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. --GreenJoe 22:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Concordia University. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. GreenJoe 23:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• He was making major improvements to the articles and requires more saving, please understand that. He did not violate anything. Ocikat (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

DUDE: You can't use another Wikipedia article as a reliable source. GreenJoe 23:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

hello

Hey! Nice editting! Just one thing I want make sure you know, you might wanna try to "Preview" few times before submitting so you can decrease the amount of edit. (I don't want you to get mistakenly banned.) but overall great posts! Firewal2 (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

-Thanks, I'll keep it in mind! AccuratEdit (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Great work! Ocikat (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you might wanna take a break, you editted a lot today. You can always comeback and edit it tomorrow. I know you are trying to improve the article but people might not know. I really don't think you should be suspended because of this.Ocikat (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your concern! I will be breaking for a while and ick, hope not to be suspended. AccuratEdit (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Ocikat talks about suspension. Perhaps I missed something, but your editing of the McGill article was excellent. Sunray (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No he has no reason to get suspended but by editting too much one day, some people might wrongly block him. We know he isn't but if you take look at the second paragraph above. Obviously he is doing a good job. Ocikat (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

McGill University article

Thanks for your contributions to the McGill University article. A couple of things you may wish to keep in mind: 1) You need sources for virtually all content, and 2) if an edit is more than a couple of words it is no longer a "minor edit." Sunray (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you please stop editing for a moment. There is a problem with one of the references that is causing text to be blanked. I need to fix that. I will tell you when I'm done. Thanks. Sunray (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just reverted everything, the problem was with two citations I added. I'm trying to improve the page while learning new Wiki functions, so bear with me! AccuratEdit (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. You fixed it by closing that reference. That's what was causing the removal of several sections to the "Notes" section. Sunray (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should 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! --SineBot (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey, thanks for that talk on my page. I didn't realize that there were so many spaces in the section movement; I did see the preview and didn't see any spaces. Thank you anyway. As for the sentence about the age, thank you for the new cite, and I actually now do agree with reverting my edit. Thank you for the many edits on the McGill Article. I'm usually busy so I can't work too much on it. Best Wishes, --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I know this seems random and unfair to other users that did a hell lot more than me, but when we finish running through the whole article and possibly getting it to FA, would you like to be co-nominator? Just wondering, reply on my talk.

About the cites in the lead, yes many articles do have them in the leads, only because they are not repeated in the article. But then again, perhaps that's different for university articles. However, it is my knowledge that no citations are necessary in the lead (summarization, or intro, all the same). Besides, I kept the other rankings, and moved the cite to the rankings section below. It does say here. Hope these things don't pop up between us, --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I just realized you moved the ranking paragraph. Thank you for that. Sunsetsunrise (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

It's me again. I fully support your changes. Excellent work. Ocikat (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Uvictoria.jpg‎

I've noticed you edited the fair use rationale for the image. While you are correct on all the points you made, it is incorrect to say the purpose of the crest is to highlight another institution. The CoA is granted to represent the holder and the holder only.

While it is also correct UVic's 3-birds design was derived from McGill's, it is not correct to say the fair use is due to that. Under Trade-Marks Act of Canada, a CoA is considered as a trademark and by Wikipedia's policy, a trademark can be displayed as Fair Use.--Cahk (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Useful Links

Use these for citations if you want. [1], [2] (recieves A- for academics) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocikat (talk • contribs) 11:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

McGill U

I just feel like there are FAR too many pictures through out and most of them are irrelevant. It is nice to have images if they tell something about McGill or enhance the text but the crest of Harvard university simply does not. If someone wants to know what the Harvard crest looks like they can follow the link to Harvard instead of making the McGill site so busy. In general, I really enjoy the quality edits you have been contributing to McGill University recently and keep up the good work. My only concern is that the lead section is too long and detailed now (I am not sure if you or someone else is responsible for this). The lead section needs to contain a summary and highlights and not every little tid bit. I commented on the discussion page for McGill about it. --DFRussia (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Ivy League.

Hmm...yes, I've took a quick peek at it and:

• You should make a chart for the rankings.
• It doesn't seem very notable. Just a simple comparison to the Ivy League. Check this.

I'll post later and check it more throughly when I have the time. Though it seems a minor article, I still support you. Best luck, --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see why people wouldn't think this article was notable.

1. There isn't much else to say then what you have said.
2. Yes, many of your cites aren't quite reliable.
3. And this terms isn't quite popular, leading them to believe that is just some slang thing.

You seem to overload this article with too many images and a bit too randomly. If you expand this article, and I'll try to help as best as I can (though as you know from McGill I don't always do a lot) then you can spread the images out, and you can be on steady ground. As a suggestion, you could start by describing each university, and the history of the term, etymology. Not in that order. Etymology, history, description. Maybe...Ivy League will help.

Hope this helps, --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Italics in McGill University article

Hi! Here are the relevant articles for italicizing on Wikipedia: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Italics and (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28text_formatting%29. The rationale for italicizing is to emphasize words. When you quote something and put it in quotation marks, then the quotation marks already emphasize the quoted text. Italicizing the text inside of quotation marks (unless it is italicized or emphasized in the original text) emphasizes the text twice and so it is either redundant, de-emphasized the quoted text, or emphasizes the quoted text to the next level, so to speak.

The Dover Demon (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

University of Waterloo

Just to let you know the citation (fact) tags you put on the University of Waterloo does not show because you incorporated the tags within the existing links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.213.31 (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a favor

Hey, in the McGill University article, there are several incomplete refs, such as access date and proper formatting. Could you change them for me, as I will be tied up for a few days. Just take a quick look at the url, put the "new" access date on (e.g. today is June 8th) and the proper formatting as in <ref>{{cite web | title = Top 500 World Universities| publisher = Institute of Higher Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University | url = http://www.arwu.org/rank/2007/ARWU2007_Top100.htm }} Accessed [[June 5th]] [[2008]]</ref>

Which is:

And a little help

If you can. If not, no problem.

Thanks, --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

D

File permission problem with File:Radiusmap08.pdf

Thanks for uploading File:Radiusmap08.pdf. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)