User talk:WindyPegg

This is my talk page. WindyPegg (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Marilou McPhedran, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Huon (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Huon. Thanks for the constructive feedback. I do not intend to defame. However, this page is very badly out of date. How can I add truthful content that is supported by references without running afoul of these guidelines? Can you help?

Here is that I'd like to add.

1)

Marilou McPhedran' is a staff member of the University of Winnipeg Global College in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. She was formerly the Principal of the College from 2008-2012, but was replaced by Executive Director Dean Peachy, .

2)

Under McPhedran's leadership, the College was the subject of controversy reported in the Uniter student newspaper. Former employees alleged that "ambiguous workloads, lack of direction and clashes with management made it a difficult environment to work in." It was also alleged by these former employees that McPhedran's management of the College was inadequate: “The thing is that there is no real leadership demonstrated. There’s lot of crisis management. There is no long-term planning."

Is this okay?

3) Her contract was not renewed by former University of Winnipeg President Lloyd Axworthy. According to Lloyd Axworthy, "McPhedran’s contract with the university expired this year [2012] and she will not be returning as principal after her one-year leave, instead taking a post as a criminal justice professor.".

These three pieces of information are factual and supported by references. I don't intend to defame. Would it be okay if I added these to the entry? The page contains very badly outdated information and reads like it was copied from the website years ago.

Thanks! WindyPegg (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the first part except the tone. The second misrepresents the sources to smear McPhedran, and the third misattributes a quote. And please let's not pretend you didn't know what you did here. Rochelle, Rochelle: A young girl's strange, erotic journey from Milan to Minsk, seriously? I find it hard to believe that you're interested in improving the encyclopedia after such an edit of yours. Huon (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh wait, of course there's also the fact that the source for the first part doesn't say what you cite it for. Huon (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Huon: I'm sorry you don't think my efforts are sincere. I am not sure what tone you are picking up from my first part, but I have modified the content and added a further reference:

She is a staff member of the University of Winnipeg Global College in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. She was formerly the Principal of the College from 2008-2012, but was replaced by Executive Director Dean Peachy. It was announced in October 2012 that McPhedran would be taking up a post as a criminal justice professor.

I hope this is okay. Refs 6 and 7 indicate that McPhedran was Principal from 08-12, and that Peachy was appointed to replace McPhedran after her contract was not renewed.

Ref 8 also cites the university president saying that McPhedran would be taking up a post as a criminal justice professor.

I will take a chance and post this information. I will not post the other sections referring to the controversy within the Global College under McPhedran's tenure as Principal as I do not wish to be banned. However, I do wonder how the public interest is being served by keeping this well publicized issue out of wikipedia.

Thanks. WindyPegg (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You'll surely agree that "but she was replaced" has other connotations than "until her contract ran out" or "In 2012 she was succeeded by". And the last time I checked, criminal justice professors weren't quite the average "staff members". Regarding the "well publicized issue", I don't see where your sources say McPhedran was the subject of that controversy. The former employees said there was a lack of management, but why was the lack McPhedran's and not, say, Director Sibanda's? The source doesn't explicitly blame her, nor reports that someone else did. Huon (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Huon: I don't wish to have a prolonged debate about this issue. The fact is, McPhedran was the Principal of the College -- the top administrative position in the College -- during a period marked by high rates of staff absenteeism, staff turnover, and publicized allegations of poor leadership. Dr. Sibanda, as you note, was merely a director of an institute affiliate with College; he was not the college's leader (nor was he in an administrative position, he was in an academic position). The buck has to stop somewhere, and the top admin person is surely the last stop in a university. That McPhedran did not have her contract renewed speaks volumes. Surely you would agree that it is more than coincidental that her contract was not renewed following allegations of mismanagement? And it is clearly not a promotion to leave a top administrative position (on par with a Dean) to become a criminal justice professor, if in fact that is what she is. It is very curious that she is not listed among the University of Winnipeg Criminal Justice department's faculty. However, she is listed on the Global College staff directory.

I know your comments are well intentioned. However, you are not apprised of all the facts in this situation. I will attempt to work within the rules that you have imposed upon my speech on this site, but do know I am speaking from a place of truthfulness.

Best regards. WindyPegg (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You're "speaking from a place of truthfulness"? Then please explain Rochelle, Rochelle: A young girl's strange, erotic journey from Milan to Minsk and the "composting toilet [...] that is reputed to be quite aromatic". Also, it's not me imposing rules, but rather Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and biographies of living persons. All you have is original research, personal opinions and outright falsehoods, and the latter make it difficult to assume good faith regarding the former. Huon (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Huon. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one -- if that's permitted by Wiki policies? Sanitize this entry if you will, but the truth remains. McPhedran's tenure as principal was fraught. Her contract was not renewed, and employees spoke out about the poor management of the college. I have provided sources, but you say my work merely original research or opinion. Sanitize, rinse, repeat.

Good day. WindyPegg (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Your accusations against another editorare completely unacceptable , especially when they are completely baseless. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit War Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advertisement

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WindyPegg. Thank you. Huon (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)