User talk:TownsendS

Just a reminder to tag major edits with a rationale. I've been watching your edits to University of Alberta with interest, but was alarmed to see that on August 29 you removed 3600 bytes of information without a rationale. In particular, you removed a cited section in the lead that discussed the university's finances. Disclaimer: I expanded that section. This doesn't bother me in itself, but if you're going to remove sourced information from the article, you need to justify that. Are you planning to reincorporate any of that information? Why or why not?

To help other users, please summarize the reasons for your edits, or if you're planning on a major overhaul, it's helpful and courteous to post a notice on the talk page so others know what your aims are.

Thanks for your continued contributions!

--Rawlangs (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:University of Alberta

Another reminder to summarize your edits. Even if constructive, unsummarized edits violate wikipedia's editing policy. I've posted the relevant guidelines to Talk:University of Alberta.

--Rawlangs (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit to Indira Samarasekera

I reviewed your deletion of the controversies section and took your reasons into account. The controversies section is valid biographical information with citations from reliable sources. Such information is in fact required by WP:ALIVE, specifically WP:BLPSTYLE. I agree that the content is written from a biased POV, but rewriting to bring it into line with WP:NPOV is the best response here.

Cheers,

--Rawlangs (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your helpful and tireless work on University of Alberta, past, present, and future. Rawlangs (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of University of Alberta people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Lewis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Jonathan Hart

Hi TownsendS, I know you said you'd explain Mr. Hart's removal in private, but wikipedians edit in public so that the reasons are clear for every editor. Would you mind explaining here, away from the University of Alberta page? I'll be reverting the edit tomorrow evening if I don't hear from you first. Etiquette is that you reply here. I'll see it. Thanks. --Rawlangs (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. No, I don't think that scandal earns him a removal from the page. I would however be comfortable with some sort of controversy section for the school. Either way, still deserves inclusion. --Rawlangs (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rawlangs, what's with the recent scandal-mongering? What useful purpose do these additions serve for readers? According to Wikipedia's own WP:BLP guidelines, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid." Although I do think the situation with Mr. Hart warrants his removal from the main-page list of some of the U of A's most distinguished people, I do not think drawing attention to personal scandals is appropriate for the U of A page, in a separate controversy section or otherwise. TownsendS (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TownsendS, The university of Alberta is not a living person, so WP:BLP does not apply. The relevant content policies are WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:ORIGINAL. As for the added scandals, their addition is demanded by WP:NPOV which requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". You can violate NPOV by omission if you fail to include relevant information. The article as you prepared it is factually correct and well researched, however it paints a very rosy picture of the University. By omitting controversies and scandals, the article failed to fully represent the university's budget, history, and reputation. --Rawlangs (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TownsendS. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TownsendS. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]