This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Ontario / Education Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario. This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Canada. Higher education This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

Can somebody please get a better picture of the building, something that improves on File:6WellingtonStCampus.jpg ? The current photo is on a severe tilt. PKT(alk) 15:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A number of editors, some with a link to the place have been adding images with only a tangential link to the University in a clear attempt to boost the image of the Uni. Please discuss any more images here and get a consensus for inclusion from editors unrelated to it. LGA _talk^edits 21:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually disagree with LGA. The photos came from Wikipedia Commons with the correct licensing and were simply used to add graphics to the page in the same manner that photos are used on other pages. To say something is a "clear attempt" is assumptive as is the discussion on "boosting an image." Should we not be dealing with facts when engaging in a discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartzs (talk • contribs) 22:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from here :

They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter

or from MOS:IMAGES :

Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. (my emphasis)

How are the Google logo and a picture of a Canadian Tire outlet significantly and directly related to to the article's topic and how do they increase readers' understanding of the subject matter, in short they do not, and while we are at it the whole of Industry Partnerships section is only sourced to the uni, there needs to be a source from outside demonstrating why this is worthy of notice and confirming the partners. LGA _talk^edits 23:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I went back to the page I noticed that they simply are graphic representations of who the partners are. I also noticed that you have just put in a citation which I believe is inappropriate given that there is a footnote for the partners. I would assume that a uni would not put information like this on their site in good faith. in my opinion, you should remove this citation. Do you have a conflict of interest with this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartzs (talk • contribs) 00:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No the source to the university is not an independent and reliable source another source of this needs to be found. I have no connection with the University or Canada. LGA _talk^edits 00:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LGA, sorry but I vehemently disagree with what you are doing on the page. Which is why I undid your last edit. I did a quick search on other sources and found individual references. Do you actually want editors to do a footnote for every single one of the mentions. One footnote suffices. Seriously, we are talking about a uni who would only lose from putting false information on their site. I am going to undo your edit again. Not intending to edit war here, but I simply believe it's the right thing to do. Stuartzs (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No my point is that the University will significantly over play the significance or the importance of something for marketing. I am not going to get into an edit war but to point out that removal of maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to can be and is often considered disruptive editing. I suggest you find an independent and reliable source source for the significance of these Industry Partnerships or the whole section will be removed. LGA _talk^edits 01:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LGA. I thought Wikipedia was a collaborative space. That's why I was surprised that you made some of your edits without opening a discussion. Would that not have been an option. Now I notice that you have began a sockpuppetry (sp?) investigation on me which to be honest, seems like a vindictive move. Please advise me if I have any recourse against you for what I believe an unfair editing practices and well as what is commonly referred to as "payback"?Stuartzs (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has an issue with a photo of Ginny Dybenko, the Exec Director of the University, being included on the page in the administration section.He believes that it constitutes Peacockery because it is simply adding to the look of the page. This was not my intention. I am using the photo for informational purposes and I have seen this approach done on other pages. I would be interested in hearing other people's comments on this matter.Stuartzs (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are misquoting me, my issue with the image is, as I have said on numinous occasions, that it does not serve to increase readers' understanding of university and as far as I can tell is only there to make the article more visually appealing and that is not a reason to add it. LGA _talk^edits 12:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I did not mention who the editor was so there is no misquote of you directly. However, thank you for the clarification. Like most of the numerous comments you have made on this page, the comment about the use of this image is purely of an editorial nature. So should you not have broached this subject on this talk page before removing the image?Stuartzs (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Further to my last post, I have reviewed other University pages, most notably Harvard and Stanford. Please note that both use photos to make their articles look more visually appealing. Do you plan on removing their images? Also, does this serve as a better source for the Margot mention that you have contested.It lists U of WS as being a participant: http://culturelab.asc.upenn.edu/2013/06/18/the-fourth-international-margot-conference/Stuartzs (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not mean we ignore this article and you need to demonstrate why it should be included here; a blog post is not a WP:RS. LGA _talk^edits 21:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LGA: This is a link to a U of WS press release of Margot: https://uwaterloo.ca/stratford-campus/sites/ca.stratford-campus/files/uploads/files/MARGOTprojectfunding_PressRel.pdf Would this do the trick and allow for the inclusion of a research section as described previously? In other words, is it considered a WP:RS? Stuartzs (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pages WP:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Independent sources go into detail about the types of source wp uses, anything from the Uni should not be used as they have a vested interest in putting a spin on the importance and significance of everything they do and no more so than in a press release. If know-one other than the university administration is writing about something it is a good heads up that it is not of any importance outside the university and should not be in the universities encyclopedia article. LGA _talk^edits 04:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LGA: I believe this does the trick.It references Margot directly. http://www.stratfordbeaconherald.com/2011/01/07/campus-programs-step-ahead Stuartzs (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a direct quote from Christine McWebb discussing what in the realms of research grants is not very much money; it is neither a secondary source nor is it a fully Independent one. The section is also full of peacock terms such as "opportunities for strategic, forward-looking research". On top of that it is a very close paraphrasing of content taken from the uni's own website. LGA _talk^edits 22:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for the opinions of others on a matter. An editor has repeatedly removed any mentions that have been made of the University of Waterloo Stratford Campus' Industry Partnerships and Advisory Board claiming that the information "significantly over plays the significance or the importance of something for marketing." I believe her has erred in doing so - and he continues to take liberties despite my protesting, flexing his editorial muscles. My opinion is this: if his line of reasoning were applied to all academic institutions, they would be unable to list past illustrious graduates or university benefactors. In other words, it is a common practice for universities to include information like what I mentioned. The mandate of the U of WS, has to do with linking the school with the real world - and I believe their ability to secure industry partnerships is key to fulfilling this mandate and is therefore relevant to the article. Similarly, the school's advisory board reflects its desire to associate with leaders in the digital space. Therefore, I believe this is not simply peacockery but the statement of fact and therefore should also be included in the article. Once again, all these practices are quite common on university pages. Opinions please.Stuartzs (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never a reason to include content here, the section on Industry Partnerships lacked any prose on what the encyclopedic significance of the partnership program was and what made it worthy of note, there were no good secondary sources detailing the work just a list of wikilinks. As for the Advisory Board, likewise there was no prose detailing the notable work the board does backed up by good secondary sources and no attempt to explain why this work is of encyclopedic significance it was just a list of names. LGA _talk^edits 23:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on mentioning the industry partnerships themselves, but I'd have to say that including the logos of various companies is not relevant to the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts: Point taken on logos and I was not contesting their removal which was done a long time ago. I do however, disagree with LGA's comment on secondary sources for industry partnerships. I actually furnished 5 secondary sources when he requested them. I was never asked about providing prose detailing notable work. The section was simply removed. I would have been happy to search for this information. Case in point: I have just furnished a secondary source for information that was requested by LGA for the research section and he has now removed it. Truth be told, I am not doing anything that is not done on other pages yet for some reason my page is under constant scrutiny by a single person. Stuartzs (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said that there were no good secondary sources, the sources you talk of are :

1. Industry Partnerships from the uni, not a secondary source, in the context of this article not reliable and finally not interdependent;
2. What is the structure and content of your program? looks like it is an application completed by the uni for an award, one that they did not appear to have won;
3. Interview With Christie McWebb on the Waterloo Global Science Initiative's website, the Waterloo Global Science Initiative "is a non-profit partnership between Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics and the University of Waterloo" so not a secondary source, in the context of this article not reliable and finally not interdependent;
4. A conversation with Google Canada Is a Q & A transcript which makes just one mention of the uni in the last part of the last question, it is of no help in the article.
5. REAP GOES WEST "REAP is a new, non-credit research initiative at the University of Waterloo" not a secondary source, in the context of this article not reliable and finally not interdependent;
6. Campus showcases innovation is a local primary news report about a one day showcase, it does not cover the Industry Partnerships at all, in fact it does not mention them my name let alone cover them in any depth;
7. Waterloo Stratford Campus is a directory page that links back to WP; no indication of the pages author but it looks like the content is from the uni directley without any editorial input so not reliable and also not interdependent.

There are only TWO (not five) from websites that are not directly linked with the university, neither of which actually mention the phrase "Industry Partnerships", neither of them cover the Industry Partnerships in any detail. LGA _talk^edits 08:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been temporarily protected so that ongoing content disputes can be dealt with here on the talk page. Please remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia, and that articles should contain verifiable, noteworthy content. Please also note, that regardless of any work any specific editor(s) has contributed to an article, they are not the owner of the article. During this protection period, only verifiability inaccurate information should be updated (via editprotected requests here); please take this time to form a consensus for changes. Should the interested editors find themselves at an impasse, please seek additional assistance via the processes outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. p.s. I'm well aware this is likely locked to The Wrong Version. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Xaoslfux for your direction. You are correct about the wrong version. Your lock was done after a contentious section was removed by LGA. Unfortunately, content disputes are never dealt with on this page. Rather, changes are made unilaterally by an editor who for some reason refuses to let me do anything. To me, it feels like Wikipedia:Wikibullying.Stuartzs (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]