User talk:Ldyajmf

University of Nottingham
Hi there. I have reverted your edits to the introduction of University of Nottingham twice. Please reconsider before adding the material again, as it does not meet Wikipedia's policy of a neutral point of view. Prestige is a nebulous quality, and describing an institution as a "leading" university tells us very little about it.

I have also removed the cited sentence referring to the "Sutton Trust 13". The Sutton Trust does not itself compile league tables, and the research paper referred to at the page cited carries an explicit caveat against the use of terms like "prestige".

I would draw your attention to the guideline on academic boosterism, which says: "A Wikipedia article should emphasize what an academic institution has and does rather than what is said about it", and I would encourage you to discuss similar material at Talk:University of Nottingham before adding it again. Thank you. — mholland (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As Mholland stated, your edits violate the policy of neutral point of view. Also, I fail to see why you remove the tables. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tables because they are hopelessly inaccurate and curently out of date and the rankings i list are the current and accurate ones. As for the term 'leading', how come Warwick and other universities are allowed to use the term? It is also a simple fact that Nottingham is part of the Sutton Trust 13, which is a term still widely used, yet for some reason you want to delete it --Ldyajmf (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Well, Warwick and other universities shouldn't be using the term on their Wikipedia page. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I would ask that if you are to put tables on the page in reference to rankings, please use those that are up to date. For example it is misleading to state that Nottingham was 19th in the 2008 Times guide, since in the most recent ranking it was 16th and it was also 13th in the most recent Sunday Times guide, not 15th. Moreover, why put in the 2008 and 2007 ranking, but not the 2006 - these references are therefore misleading, since your should not reference unless you have all the facts --Ldyajmf (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the whole point of the tables is to show change over time, and as long as your changes are sourced, that's not an issue. I personally don't have a prblem with the Sutton Trust 13 being included, as long as that too is sourced. You'll have to forgive us a bit of our... reticence to allow changes, but the article is currently ranked as a good article, and so is generally considered to be a fine piece of work, and additions like "leading" and other POV terms to the lead section could cause the article to lose that status. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with the table per se, i only ask that if you are to include it make sure it is accurate, for example Nottingham was 13th, not 15th in the 2008 sunday times guide and was 14th not 16th in 2005 (if you click on the reference you will see that i am right). It is mistakes like this that i have a problem with, and indeed for this to be a good article things like this need to be correct, esp since you are doing the university a disservice when putting incorrect (and not as good rankings) on the page. Therefore, all i ask is that these mistakes are corrected and the most current Times ranking is included. --90.217.163.193 (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to University of Nottingham has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 18:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to University of Nottingham constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 18:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just removing inaccurate and misleading information which is not vandalism. --Ldyajmf (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Times Good university guide 2000 - Were did you get the 10th from, the book has it as 12th? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.51.74 (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2009 (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) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)