Talk:Upper Canada College/Archive 2

message: Is it really the cookie monster? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen pictures of a few football games where there's someone dressed as the Cookie Monster, but as mascots seem to come and go at UCC I'm not sure if it still is.  It certainly wasn't when I went there. --gbambino 16:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you concentrated more on reading and less on building up your sarcasm and condescension skills, you might have noted that I only remember seeing some pictures of a guy dressed in a Cookie Monster costume at some A-Day and other football games.  I noted that the mascot may well have changed since then.  Also, despite you apparently vast knowledge of copyright law, what else would you call a blue-furred, wide-mouthed, googly-eyed character, other than Cookie Monster?  He sure as hell ain't "O RLY OWL," whatever the f*ck that is.  I'm removing reference to a mascot until it can be confirmed the school actually has one, and what it is. --gbambino 21:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to know what the O RLY owl is, then, LOL, read the damn Wikipedia article on the topic! Until you do so, I am putting it back as the O RLY owl because you admit youself that you have no idea what the O RLY owl is. If you're not sure what it is, how can you be sure it's not the UCC mascot? Logic FTW. I am glad to hear that finally acknowledged my complete and utter correctness in pointing out the ridiculousness of your assertion that the UCC mascot was the Cookie Monster. At least, we can put that to rest.
I would have read the article if you had provided the right link.  Before doing so it appeared you were making up utter nonsense.  But, you still haven't provided evidence that it is actually the mascot.  I'm not specifically asserting that it isn't (and it seems to contiune to slip over your comprehension that I never did attest to knowing for sure what the mascot is), but frankly, without proof that "O RLY owl" is, I'm removing it from the table until it can be confirmed by other sources.  Nothing personal, just trying to be factually accurate. --gbambino 22:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mascot

message: Re. Barton: I went to UCC from '83 to '94 and don't remember any such comment.  Provide a more viable source.  As well, provide proof he was heterosexual.
Re. Motek: Remember the guy, but don't remember the essay.  You say it's in the '91 Times, but strangely in the article you put '88.  I'll check both my copies at home.
Re. photos in yearbook: The presence of predominantly "white" faces in the yearbook photos is not proof of systematic racism at UCC.  It may well be the concequence of the fact that upper middle class and upper class Toronto society through those decades was predominantly "white."  As well you can't necessarily tell someone's ethnicity just by how they look - do all Jews look different to Anglo-Europeans, or Eastern Europeans? --gbambino 22:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, ROFL, I have no source to prove Barton's heterosexuality. I think most people would at least say that he "passed" as heterosexual, what with his wife and kids and all. I applaud the high editorial standards you have set by insisting on sourcing EVERYTHING. As a result, I have taken the liberty of editing the entire UCC article by deleting anything that is not footnoted. Together, we can build a better, more reliable, more sourced article on UCC. I look forward to our collaboration.
Have anything substantial to contribute?  Or do you just have a personal grudge against the school? Regardless, learn to work with more than just base generalizations. Self-improvement is a good thing. --gbambino 22:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Gambino, a lot more makes sense to me. I checked out your bio page. Turns out you're a fan of the Monarchist League of Canada. Which is about a hair breath's away from the KKK as a legally sanctioned whites only hate group. No wonder you don't like hearing about racism at UCC....
Please review the Wikipedia policy on No personal attacks. These comments are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Ground Zero | t 04:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Zero, please refer to Gambino's quote "Unlike many other Canadian independent schools, UCC has a long history of ethnic students since its founding. The first black student enrolled in 1831, the first Jewish student in 1836 and the first aboriginal student in 1840, some graduates from the Ojibway peoples of Upper Canada going on to study at Dartmouth College and Harvard University. [9] Still, despite the inclusion of students from these ethnic groups, UCC maintained a reputation as a "bastion of WASP privilege." [10]:Do you see his use of the the "Still" and "despite"? These are weasel words and threaten the wikigoodness of NPOV, please, you must help us here and correct the bias that Gambino is introducing here by trying to "tone down" or delegitimize the "reputation" of UCC as a "bastion of WASP privilege". His phrasing instructs the reader to take any charge of racism at UCC with a grain of salt. Do you not agree? Can you delete these weasel words plz? Thx !!! :) 05:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity section 

message: I have semi-protected this page, which means that it cannot be edited by anonymous and newly-registered users. I have taken this action because an anonymous editor has been deleting large portions of text to illustrate a point, which is contrary to Wikipedia:Etiquette. In so he doing, he/she also appears to have violated the Three-revert rule, which is an official policy of Wikipedia. I encourage the editor to take some time off from this article to review Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to learn how to work with other editors to improve articles, and how to avoid edit wars, which are a waste of everybody's time. Ground Zero | t 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me -- new here.  But what qualifies *you* to hold this position of privilege?  If this user was a registered user, what then?  Or is this fairly typical when it comes to wikipedia (i.e., anonymous users screwing around)?
I am an Administrator, so I have special powers to protect articles, see through walls, fly, and, well, actually not so much the last two, but I can protect articles, block users, and do a few other things. If, for example, the actions that led to the semi-protection had been done by a registered user, I could have blocked the user from editing for a period of time. Semi-protection and protection are done with some frequency to protect Wikipedia from vandalism and to help resolve edit wars. Ground Zero | t 23:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: (1) Can you address the hypocracy of Gambino breaking the Three-revert rule himself with no consequences? (2) How does one deal with the hypocracy that he can delete additions "because they have no source" but if the same standard is applied to his writing, this is considered vandalism? Honestly, not being cheeky here, I really want to know.  -- Unsigned comment by User:68.149.195.86 
The word is "hypocrisy". The three-revert rule does not apply inthe case of vandalism. Your large-scale deletions were vandalism because you were disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. For example, you removed references in the first paragraph to UCC being a private school, and all other description but "UCC is a school" not to improve the article, but to make a point. If someone challenges you to provide a source, the way to respond -- and this really is how things work on Wikipedia -- is to provide a source. Responding by blanking out large portions of text becuase you don't want to defend your actions is vandalism. I have been around Wikipedia long enough to be made an administrator, so I do know how things work here. And, often, I have learned by making mistakes. We all do. So please don't consider this an attack on you. I just want to encourage you to learn more bout this great project by reviewing its policies and guidelines. I've linked a few above to get you started. By learning about the policies and guidelines, you can be more effective in contributing to Wikipedia, and avoid messy confrontations like this. Ground Zero | t 04:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope that the Admin will note that Gamibino seems very quick to immediately whine to mommy admin with the "POV" argument as noted in the mediation he required with AndyL on the Monarchist League of Canada page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Archive_18#Monarchist_League_of_Canada_and_Monarchy_in_Canada.  How many times will you let Gambino abuse the system to tug at mommy's pant legs when he sees things that he doesn't like until you Admins start rightfully ignoring Gambino's hypocritical propagandist rants? This isn't good for Wikipedia when advocates of an insane position can exploit you Admin folk to enforce an incumbent POV.  -- Unsigned comment by User:66.208.54.226 
Here is another policy that you can review to start learning about how Wikipedia works: No personal attacks. We do our best to be civil here. Your comemnts are not appropriate. Again, we all make mistakes when we first start off, so you're not alone in these transgressions. Making mistakes is how we learn. Ground Zero | t 04:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zero, I reviewed the article on Neutral Point of View NPOV. 
* But these racist events at UCC are not OPINION, they are FACT. Though in that light, I should retract statements like "insidious institutional racism" and let the FACTUAL occurences speak for themselves. 
* I also object to the hypocracy that Gambino accuses me of violating Verifiability WP:VAND while at the same time, he is even more guilty than I. Why not delete HIS *UNVERIFIED* statements about UCC? He is violating one of the "3 pillars" of wikigoodness and you turn a blind eye to his contravention of Law while punishing just me. Is this fair I ask you? 
* If I were you, I would agree with my reasoning that is solidly based on your OWN rules on wikigoodness and delete every single sentence in the article that LACKS VERIFIABILITY, which I will remind you again, is canonical law in wiki land. Allow me to quote for you what it says at NPOV: NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. The three policies are complementary, non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editor's consensus. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. 
* Please Admin man, I beg you, enforce your own rules of Verifiability on the Gambino. BTW, what's a tilde? 68.50.242.120 04:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Zero, my work in the Sourcing section above, in which I demonstrate that Gambino has 96, YES!!! 96 unverified statement and that's not even the whole article, just part of it. Please enforce Wiki Verifiability and force Gambino to source each statement or delete it (which was all I was trying to do before and was in full compliance with wikinesss as a result). I tried the four squigglies but they don't show up, what's up with that? 68.50.242.120 04:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Zero, I must be confused. You acknowledge that Gambino has FAILED to conform with one of the 3 canonical pillars of wikiness by NOT providing verifiability. Who cares what you think my POV is on the matter? I thought you as Admin guy value NPOV, you don't want to hear my POV, so why would my POV factor into your decision at all. It is fact that Gambino is contravening one of the 3 holiest Law of Wikiness. You do not dispute this. In fact, I believe you admit it. And yet you will not take corrective action on Gambino? Why? I do not understand. Please help me understand. Otherwise could you do me a favor and just state for record in writing the following: "I Zero hereby acknowledge that Gambino has violated the rule of Wiki Verifiability in at least 96 of his statements, but I have decided to explicitly refuse to do my duty as an Admin and take any action to any of those 96 violations of Wiki Verifiability." Then after you do that, can you instruct me how I can appeal to other Admin people and show them your statement of rejecting Wikiness? Or do I wiki that? or google that? (not sure) 68.50.242.120 05:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: I might venture to say that the dispute revolves around 66.208.54.226's insertion of the following points on March 13:
:Still, despite the "success stories" of Upper Canada College admitting token Black, Asian, Amerindian and Jewish students up until the 1990s, UCC maintained a reputation as a "bastion of WASP privilege."
:Anecdotal examples of deep-seated insidious racism at the school in the 1980s included: 
:* Headmaster Barton, a wealthy heterosexaul white male, lectured during a morning Prayers service in 1987 that he understood the pain of being on the receiving end of racism because one time, while in the Caribbean, he was called "Whitey".  
:* Motek Sherman, the Editor of the school's yearbook The College Times in 1988, wrote an introductory essay decrying the institutional racism he had endured at the school as a Jew.  
:* Taking a cursory look at the photographss of students in The College Times from the 1950s to the 1970s will demonstrate, even to the casual observer, that there was a disproportionaly low number of Blacks, Jews, Asians and Amerindians. In the 1980s, the number of "wealthy model minorities" such as the Jews and Asians increased. 1
66.208.54.226's actions include:
* Violation of WP:NPOV by inserting original research which lacks credible sources.
* Violation of WP:NPA as demonstrated on these talk pages.
* Violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats as demonstrated on these talk pages.
* Violation of Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point by repeatedly vandalising the article through removing large sections of text.
* Violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith by admitting his mission is to "expose that UCC was not a racist-free playground nor even a paragon of diversity" 2, as well as providing contradictory, and incorrect, sources for information: 3
I have made the effort to find the actual source of his insertion about Motek Sherman, and this has been included in the article.  Other words on UCC's demographics and anti-Semitism have been inserted as well. --gbambino 05:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL, this is not a "Dispute Summary", this is a personal attack on a poor noob. You should retitle this section "Every Possible Argument I Can Think Of To Convince Admins To Ban 66 - a Wiki Noob - While Ignoring Every Edit I Have Subsequently Been Forced To Make to this Article about UCC at the Command of Admins Because of 66's Ultimately Constructive Criticism". As I said yesterday, I will submit a summary of my outstanding objections to this article later today. 68.50.242.120 10:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Gbambino, I wish you would have a go at providing us outsiders with what you consider to be a more neutral summary. I think some of your comments are hard to sift through for information because they focus so much on the person and so little on the article. Is it at all possible you can have a go at phrasing your understanding of 68's objections to the article in your own words? If you have time I would appreciate it. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 12:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you're confusing 66.208.54.226's personal insults and mud-slinging as being mine?  But, alright, let me try and be more clear: as I understand it, "68's" objection is that this article doesn't focus enough on what he perceives to be institutional racism inherent amongst the administration and students of Upper Canada College.  After being challenged on his POV edits, and asked to provide sources to back up his hearsay and conjecture, he proceeded to valdalise the page and launch into personal attacks against myself, and User:CambridgeBayWeather.  My objection is that his edits violate WP:NPOV through inserting original research which lacks credible sources, as well as his edits being in bad faith by his admission that he wants to "expose" the "ugly underbelly" of systematic racism at UCC.  That's as neutral as I can be in this case. --gbambino 16:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute summary

message: Some relevant points from Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point:
:If someone deletes information about a person you consider to be important from an article, calling it unimportant... 
:*do argue on the article's talk page for the person's inclusion, pointing out that other information about people is included in the article. 
:*don't delete all the information about every person from the article, calling it unimportant. ''
There is a direct parallel between this example and what User:66/68 has been doing. After Gbambino removed texzt that the anon user had added and requested a source for the additions, the anon user removed large portions of text and insisted that they be sourced, including really obvious bits like UCC being located in Toronto. 
:Egregious disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator — for up to one month in the case of repeat offenses that are highly disruptive. 
This is the basis for semi-protection of the article. because the anon user is not registered and edits from different IP numbers, it is not possible to block him/her. Semi-protection, unfortunately, prevents other unregistered users from editing, but protects Wikipedia from 66/68's disruptive behaviour.  Ground Zero | t 22:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruptiveness

message: Re the following passages (comments interspersed):
:Still, despite the "success stories" of Upper Canada College admitting token Black, Asian, Amerindian and Jewish students up until the 1990s, UCC maintained a reputation as a "bastion of WASP privilege."
Comment: the use of "scare quotes" is unencyclopedic. One should only use quotation marks when one is referencing a real quotation, not for emphasis, sarcasm or to make a rhetorical point. Second, the reference to "token Black, Asian, Amerind and Jewish students" is a POV. If you can find a source that uses the term "token" to describe these students then reference it. Otherwise, its the editor's opinion an shouldn't be in the article. I would not be surprised to learn that the phrase "bastion of WASP privilege" has been used to describe UCC (indeed, it's a phrase I could easily have used myself) but a) if it's an actual quotation then there should be a reference b) if it's the editor's opinion it shoudn't be included unless there is a reference to back it up. Addendum I see that "bastion of WASP privilege" is now footnoted as an honest to goodness quotation. Good. 
:Anecdotal examples of deep-seated insidious racism at the school in the 1980s included: 
Comment:The phrase "deep-seated insidious racism" is POV. Cite an actual use of this phrase to describe UCC or drop it. 
:* Headmaster Barton, a wealthy heterosexaul white male, lectured during a morning Prayers service in 1987 that he understood the pain of being on the receiving end of racism because one time, while in the Caribbean, he was called "Whitey".  
Comment:1) a source is needed. 2) wikipedia articles are not argumentative essays so they should not be written as such. 3) "wealthy heterosexual white male" belabours the point. In any case, I think readers can deduce on their own that Barton is white from the rest of the paragaraph. 4)calling him heterosexual makes an assumption beyond the reach of wikipedia.
If there is a citation for Barton having made the statement, I think the above bullet should be rewritten to read something along the lines of:
*During his lecture at a morning paryer service in 1987, Headmaster Barton claimed that he understood the pain of being on the receiving end of racism because he was called "Whitey" when he was in the Caribbean. 
:* Motek Sherman, the Editor of the school's yearbook The College Times in 1988, wrote an introductory essay decrying the institutional racism he had endured at the school as a Jew.  
Comment':  I haven't read the essay so I can't say if the term "institutional racism" is Sherman's analysis or that of the editor. If the latter, it shouldn't be used. 
:* Taking a cursory look at the photographss of students in The College Times from the 1950s to the 1970s will demonstrate, even to the casual observer, that there was a disproportionaly low number of Blacks, Jews, Asians and Amerindians. In the 1980s, the number of "wealthy model minorities" such as the Jews and Asians increased. 
Comment: This looks like original research to me. Also, I seriously doubt the methodology of counting the number of Jews by looking at a photograph just as I'd doubt anyone who says they can count the number of Catholics by this method. Unless UCC had a policy of forcing Jews to wear yellow stars on their clothing I don't see how this can be done. Or is the editor asserting that some students "look Jewish"? If so, I would challenge his credibility when it comes to calling others on their racism. (Note: Various anti-Semitic regimes have forced Jews to adorn special clothing precisely because there is no reliable way of identifying who is and who is not a Jew by sight - at least not without violating public nudity laws and that method only works for men in some cultures where circumcision is uncommon.)Homey 23:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I am not such a newb to Wiki, I for the most part agree with what you have written here Homey. I am however still looking for mediation/arbitration/appeals on "A Neutrally Written Dispute Summary" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Upper_Canada_College#A_Neutrally_Written_Dispute_Summary. If you're not the person, let me know. Thx. 66.208.54.226 01:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some comments

message: Could somebody please tell me where I can find information on how to insert footnotes?  ThanksWormwoodJagger 14:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to describe... Basicly, I'd say just follow the examples within the article - it's actually quite an easy process. --gbambino 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes