User talk:Upapilot

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=620048757 your edit] to McGill University may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

McGill's lead
Hi! After reading your message, I understand your point of deleting the per student endowment info. I just thought that wealth deserved a line there as seen in the intro. of many other university pages. Concerning with the reputation, a statement about global prestige was actually added on the Yale page before but the citations were finally considered not robust enough to support the claim. I'm really not sure whether rankings are good sources for prestige since they can be quite different, varied and controversial and we don't have a clear threshold of what positions (e.g. top 10, 20 or 100?) on which league tables (ARWU vs QS vs THE vs US News) make an institution widely reputable - not a direct way to say so, in my opinion. For instance, Harvard, MIT or Stanford page doesn't use rankings for that purpose when Cambridge precisely uses the term "in different university rankings". Besides, it's biased if we only add one/two of them favoring the Univ. as the reference. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 08:43, 26 May 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Sounds good. As I always say, preciseness and conciseness are what we need for the lead. Besides, you can use your own style of signature instead of adopting mine. It's free here! In dialogue with Biomedicinal 15:45, 26 May 2015

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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry, merry!
From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

McGill University arbitration case request declined
In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard exists as a first point of call for disputes that are not resolved by discussion, and the Mediation Committee provides formal mediation for advanced content disputes.

In all cases, you should review Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The question is how then do we start establishing the noticeboard venue or any proper venue to discuss this matter.  All we get is "do not do this",  "do that",  but there are no instructions on how to set up the discussion and resolution of this "coed" issue sans arbitration.   We need help from editors, not  more  "do's and dont's" lectures.  Jacknpoy (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have already set up a Talk page discussion on the issue. The way to go is to achieve a consensus on the discussion before moving forward with the edit. (Read: BOLD, revert, discuss). Upapilot (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, great, thanks.  I will proceed there now to discuss.Jacknpoy (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)