Talk:University of New Brunswick

Article's quality lowered

Hey @RetroTetra, the article was re-reviewed by somebody who decided to mark it as a C-Class tier due to, like I've told you before, the article's B-Class rating being outdated. You can stop going around peoples' talk pages claiming that I'm "vandalizing" the article for simply marking where it can be improved now, whilst using the article's "B-Class rating" to excuse this behavior. It's immature of you to attempt to bring random people into what is nothing more than a simple disagreement that you chose to escalate. Please refer back to what I've said to you on my talk page, thank you. B3251 (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The article assessments are a relic of Wikipedia 1.0, an effort to assess and categorize articles in preparation for a printed or DVD version of a very early Wikipedia, which never really got off the ground and has been defunct for over a decade. The only assessments that are really standardized and actually count for anything are good and featured articles. Bickering about whether this page is B-class or C-class is a waste of time, it doesn't matter at all.

Also I must remind you both that civility is required. You can discuss issues with the article and ways to improve those issues in a respectful manner, or you can be blocked from editing. Those are your two options. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for noting the importance of discussion. Indeed, none of the extensive edits that B3251 made singlehandedly to this established article was discussed in Talk. Please revert his edits to enable discussing before extensively editing. RetroTetra (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to blanket revert anything, and neither should you. We encourage editors to edit boldly; we're not a bureaucracy and don't expect every minor change to be vetted by committee and approved with all the proper forms signed in triplicate and filed with the head office before editing. If you have specific edits or content that you think should not have been added or need to be changed, either go ahead and fix it, or identify and discuss it here. Just don't edit war, please. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't believe I must quote this to a senior admin: "Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus(...) An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted(...) Be bold, but not rash(...)" RetroTetra (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You seem to only be concerned about the presence of cleanup tags in the article, which if you haven't noticed have already been removed. This morning I went through the material that B3251 flagged and addressed some of it and removed some other tags which I felt were excessive. The entire sum of the changes that were made since B3251 first started tagging a week ago is here, if you'd like to review it in one place. If there are other things that either of us missed, corrections from either of us that you don't think are correct, or just other things in general that you think could be improved, you need to say what they are. You can quote policies and guidelines at me until your fingers bleed, but I am not going to just undo a week's worth of work by multiple editors just because you weren't consulted. If you would like to work on improving the article, perhaps getting it to the WP:GA level where assessments actually count for something, I'm willing to help. If you just want to keep complaining, I'll invite you to read the essay on tendentious editing instead. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Where in the above posts did I say tags? And so I must repeat it again: mass edits without discussing them first are the issue. As for your refusing to do your duty, note that Arbitrators have already decided on this and all like issues: "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." Please comply with the arbitration decision and do your duty: revert the mass edits so they could be discussed by the community. Thanks. RetroTetra (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This will be my final comment on the matter: no. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I've only heard rumors of this happening, but this is first hand. Milelong fancy rules, bylaws, arbitrations... exposed as baloney in an instant when an almighty "senior admin" aka invector says so. lol RetroTetra (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Ivanvector, thank you for the improvements you’ve made to the article. I can’t disagree when you say that the tagging is a bit excessive and I’m definitely not an expert at it, I only started actively editing on Wikipedia since about March of this year so I’m still learning. That being said, it was odd being accused of ‘vandalism’ as well as various assumptions and accusations about me.

The first time they removed the improvement templates I had put up in various sections over time, the user added that I had been told multiple times regarding them in the edit reason. Because this wasn’t the case, it left me confused so I passed it off as nothing more than a troll edit.

I find it unfair for @RetroTetra to pass me off as a vandal and that I need to ‘reach consensus’ for seemingly any edit I make, as if they have some sort of ownership to the article. I’ve spent the past few months, off and on, making various improvements to the article and I plan on continuing to do so, and I hope that I can do so.

I appreciate you taking the time to discuss about this topic, and I don’t feel like this needs to continue on any longer so this will, unless necessary, be my last comment on the matter. Thank you.

As for removing the comment in your talk page, I apologize for doing that; from my perspective - after receiving wild accusations about my character on multiple occasions, as well as the user bugging another admin, who had removed it due to not wanting to be involved (it’s worth noting these happened after I informed them that escalating this into an edit war will lead me to going to the Administrators’ noticeboard) it really doesn’t seem to be out of good faith, and, due to some of their comments, feels like a personal attack, which is why I chose to remove it. I apologize again for doing so, and I won’t do that going forward. Thanks.B3251 (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Founding and charters cleanup

Okay I did miss one: there is a cleanup tag remaining in the "Founding and charters" section saying "cleanup and new content needed". B3251, can you elaborate? Did you mean that to apply to just that subsection or the entire History section? And what in particular needs to be cleaned up, or what new material needs to be added? @RetroTetra: inviting your input as well. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I added that a while back so I can’t fully remember, but I think I added it with the intention to attempt to make some kind of improvement to that section to the future. Feel free to remove it if you’d like. B3251 (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Ivanvector, do you know anything about the "&c &c &c: —" displayed in the quote in the history section? That doesn't need to be there, right? B3251 (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

"&c" is an archaic shorthand for et cetera, not uncommon in formal letters from this time. The source given for the quote has an image of the letter ([1]) where you can see how it looks in the original, although what it looks like is kind of a scribble. I think it should stay in because it's part of the quotation, but I'm not sure. MOS:QUOTE probably has useful guidance. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello Ivanvector, thank you for teaching me something new!

I didn't know et cetera had been written that way, you learn something new everyday. B3251 (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)