User talk:Vittoriona

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Vittoriona, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Round University Ranking, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Round University Ranking[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Round University Ranking, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Stanford University, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Round University Ranking[edit]

Hi Vittoriona. Thanks for honestly and openly declaring your role as representative of Round University Ranking. I'm not sure how to proceed. Of course, there are potential conflicts of interest here. And there are promotional issues, because at the moment, all the article does is summarise the content on the organisation's own website, which basically just describes itself and its mission. You need independent reliable sources which have written about the organisation, not just sources which confirm that it exists. In other words, is it notable? I've been trying to find independent sources that describe and evaluate the organisation. There's very little in English, apart from some YouTube stuff and blogs - and wikipedia policy generally recommends we avoid both - but among them I found the following remark in the blog of Richard Holmes, a reputable professional in the field:

..."a Russian organisation, Round University Ranking (RUR), has produced another set of league tables. Apart from a news item [on the website IREG Group] these rankings have received almost no attention outside Russia, Eastern Europe and the CIS. This is very unfortunate since they do almost everything that the other rankings do and contain information that the others do not."

It's a tough one. But you definitely can't just rely on the self-opinion of your own organisation. Having looked through the article several times now, it reads as heavily promotional and not at all encyclopedic in content or tone. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COI and SPAM[edit]

Hello. Please do not write about your own organization or introduce links or mentions of your organization. If it is notable and worthy of citation, unconnected editors will write the article or introduce the references. If you proceed as you have been doing, with conflict of interest editing, and adding inappropriate, spam links, your account could be blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New page version[edit]

Dear moderators, Please, accept our sincere apologies for breaking the Wikipedia rules. The employee who was responsible for editing the page did not put us on notice about his actions and the information he filled in was not agreed on. Currently the situation is being held and taken under control by the management of the RUR Agency. Is it right that the article should be brief (facts only) and should contain quotations from the articles which describe the company’s activity.

We have the following amount of mentions of our ranking in English:

Blog of Richard Holmes http://rankingwatch.blogspot.ru/2015/09/looking-inside-engine-structure-of.html http://rankingwatch.blogspot.ru/2015/09/from-russia.html http://rankingwatch.blogspot.ru/2016/01/aussies-not-impressed-with-an-more.html

Caltech: https://www.caltech.edu/content/university-and-college-rankings

Thomson Reuters: http://thomsonreuters.com/en/press-releases/2014/thomson-reuters-powers-worlds-leading-university-rankings.html http://stateofinnovation.thomsonreuters.com/the-worlds-most-innovative-universities

IREG Observatory: http://ireg-observatory.org/en/index.php/325-new-ranking-from-russia

National Research Nuclear University MEPhI: https://mephi.ru/eng/content/news/1812/97069/

National Research University of Electronic Technology: https://eng.miet.ru/event/73297

Saint Petersburg Electrotechnical University "LETI": http://www.eltech.ru/en/university/news/leti-improved-resluts-in-round-university-ranking

Voronezh State University: http://www.vsu.ru/english/news/feed/2015/12/6517

Comenius University in Bratislava: http://staryweb.uniba.sk/index.php?id=1308&tx_ttnews%5BpS%5D=1424754679&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=3777&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=1733&cHash=bc8dfbf9a2

Research information: http://www.researchinformation.info/news/news_story.php?news_id=1795

Tomsk State University: http://en.tsu.ru/news/tsu_entered_the_top_200_of_the_world_ranking_of_universities_for_quality_education/

Baku State University: http://libinfo.bsu.edu.az/en/news/bsu_is_in_the_list_of_top_750_universities_of_the_world

RIA News: http://ria.ru/society/20151215/1342457131.html

Interfax: http://edu.interfax.ru/articles/293/

The following mentions are in Russian:

Kommersant: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2905128

Project 5-100:http://5top100.ru/about/more-about/

TASS: http://tass.ru/obschestvo/2529172

TASS: http://tass.ru/obschestvo/2230097

RIA News: http://ria.ru/society/20151215/1342457131.html

Interfax: http://edu.interfax.ru/articles/293/

Science and technology: http://strf.ru/material.aspx?CatalogId=221&d_no=97925#.VulkD-KLTIX

National University Ranking: http://unirating.ru/news.asp?lnt=6&id=445

Russian Education: http://www.edu.ru/news/education/v-top-200-mezhdunarodnogo-reytinga-rur/

Sign: http://www.vz.ru/society/2015/12/15/783901.html

etc.

Could you please explain us once again, what the article should and should not contain? We attach the new version of the article below and are looking forward to hearing your comments on it. We are truly grateful for your understanding and help!

Round University Ranking (RUR Ranking) is a world university ranking, assessing effectiveness of 750 leading universities in the world based on 20 indicators distributed among 4 key dimension areas: teaching, research, international diversity, financial sustainability.^[1]^[2] RUR Ranking has been publishing since 2010.

Methodology The RUR rankings are based entirely on InCites, the evaluation and benchmarking engine from Thomson Reuters for scientific search. The raw data for RUR Ranking is provided within a special annual survey run by Thomson Reuters - Global Institutional Profiles Project (GIPP).^[3]^[4] Altogether there are 20 indicators divided into four groups: teaching, research, international diversity and financial sustainability. The first two groups have a weighting of 40 per cent each and the latter two 10 per cent.^[5] The final methodology also included the weighting signed to each of the 20 indicators, shown below^[6]

Apart from the main Overall Ranking, that is calculated basing upon 20 indicators in accordance with the methodology described above, in the RUR system there do exist additional ratings echoing the main groups of rating indicators:^[7] • Teaching Ranking • Research Ranking • International Diversity Ranking • Financial Sustainability Ranking Notes: Round University Rankings contain all of the indicators used in the Times Higher Education (THE) world rankings, except for the “industry innovation: income” indicator. They also include some additions such as national and international measures of teaching reputation, citations per academic and research staff, papers per academic and research staff, papers per research income and normalised citations impact.^[8]

References

May 2016[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Dear Wikipedia editors!

Could you please take a look at our recent update? Do we need to edit anything else? What are your suggestions on our next steps?

Thank you very much for your time! Best Regards, RUR team

Adding more references is a good thing. There are a couple of things I noticed, primarily that Wikipedia does not allow sharing of accounts. I keep seeing you say "we" and "The RUR Team". If there are multiple people editing Wikipedia, they each need to have their own accounts. Second, when you make a talk page post, be sure to sign your message with ~~~~ so other users know who wrote the message. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://rankingwatch.blogspot.ru/2015/09/looking-inside-engine-structure-of.html

[2] ttps://mephi.ru/eng/content/news/1812/97069/

[3] ttp://www.researchinformation.info/news/news_story.php?news_id=1795

[4] ttp://thomsonreuters.com/en/press-releases/2014/thomson-reuters-powers-worlds-leading-university-rankings.html

[5] ttp://ireg-observatory.org/en/index.php/325-new-ranking-from-russia

[6] ttp://roundranking.com/library/methodology.html

[7] ttp://ireg-observatory.org/en/index.php/325-new-ranking-from-russia

[8] ttp://ireg-observatory.org/en/index.php/325-new-ranking-from-russia

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]