Talk:Northern Alberta Institute of Technology

Uncategorized comments

I'd like to change the numbers in the introduction and sidebar to reflect NAIT's newly published quick facts: http://www.nait.ca/50198.htm kvernon78 (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
NAIT has updated its student and program numbers and has joined Polytechnics Canada. We made the change to the intro paragraph and Infobox to reflect this. kvernon78 (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Organization

The Schools were out of date. We made the change to reflect the new names/links. --dbegincr 14:05, 22 July 2009
The Schools are out of date. I'd like to update the names/links as per http://www.nait.ca/44323.htm. Kvernon78 (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Academic areas were updated to reflect names and links as per http://www.nait.ca/44323.htm. kvernon78 (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Colours

Blue and yellow are our sport's team colours but the institute's official colours are dark blue (Pantone 288) and light blue (Pantone 299). We made the change to add the institute's official colours as well. --dbegincr 14:05, 22 July 2009

Programs

The Bachelor of Applied Business Administration in Enterprise Management's name changed to just Bachelor of Applied Business Administration. We made the change to reflect the name change.--dbegincr 14:05, 22 July 2009

Other locations

Our campus is now just in Edmonton and St. Albert. We made the change to reflect the downsizing of the campus locations. --dbegincr 14:05, 22 July 2009

Alumni

I feel that we should add a "Famous Alumni" section but am having trouble finding information on this.--LucidGA 03:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

External Links

Can we please add NAIT techlife magazine to the external links? Text should be NAIT techlife magazine and the link is http://techlifemag.ca LindaHoang (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent comments

I'd like to update the numbers in the introduction to reflect NAIT's newly-published quick facts: http://www.nait.ca/50198.htm Please replace the paragraph starting with 'NAIT offers' with the following:

NAIT offers approximately 140 credit programs leading to degrees, applied degrees, diplomas and certificates. There are approximately 8,400 full-time students, 20,500 students in continuing education and part-time studies, 12,300 apprentices anticipated for 2012, and more than 20,000 registrants for customized corporate based training. NAIT also attracts international students from 77 countries.

LindaHoang (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Programs 2

The Retail Meatcutting program is now called Professional Meat Cutting and Merchandising (http://www.nait.ca/program_home_78044.htm) Please change to reflect new program name. LindaHoang (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we list Emergency Management as a program under Diploma? (http://www.nait.ca/program_home_89279.htm) LindaHoang (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we add Trades to Degrees pathway as a subheading underneath all the listed degrees, diplomas, and certificates? It should read:

Trades to Degrees pathway The Trades to Degrees pathway allows certified tradespeople the opportunity to move directly from a trades credential to the third-year of a degree program. (http://www.nait.ca/89409.htm) LindaHoang (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

History

Can we add a sentence about NAIT's 50th anniversary after the text listed under 'History?'

NAIT has been a leading polytechnic for more than 50 years. The school marked its 50th anniversary in 2012. (http://www.nait.ca/44779_88938.htm) LindaHoang (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we add a few points under a new year 2012 subheading in the history section?

2012 NAIT celebrates its 50th anniversary as a leading polytechnic. (http://alumni.nait.ca/page.aspx?pid=314) NAIT launches Trades to Degrees, which allows certified tradespeople the opportunity to move directly from a trades credential to the third year of a degree program. The pioneering Trades to Degrees pathway is a response to workforce demand for tradespeople with managerial, leadership and entrepreneurial skills. (http://www.nait.ca/44779_89417.htm) LindaHoang (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Campus

Under the Campus section, can we replace the first line with the following:

The institute has three campuses in Edmonton: Main Campus at 11762 - 106 Street, Patricia Campus at 12204 - 149 Street and Souch Campus at 7110 Gateway Boulevard. The institute also has incubation facilities in St. Albert and, at its Calgary site, offers a selection of part-time and customized corporate training. (http://www.nait.ca/campuslocations.htm) LindaHoang (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Students' Association

The third paragraph under Students' Association about techlife magazine, isn't really related to the Students' Association. Can techlife magazine have its own subheading with the following information:

Techlife is the institute's official magazine, focusing on people, technology and innovation. It is published twice yearly, in spring and fall, with new content added regularly at techlifemag.ca. (http://www.techlifemag.ca/)

If it's not possible to have it in its own subheading, can you please just revise the current text for it with what I suggested above. LindaHoang (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, LindaHoang, you have some good ideas there and they are backed up with references. It looks to me that you know what you are talking about and would be the best person to edit the page. Be bold and make the changes. Don't worry about mistakes or not getting the references in correctly as they can be fixed later. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you CamBridgeBayWeather, I will Be bold and make the changes myself! LindaHoang (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Poorly sourced "controversy"

Mtadridgy, a single-purpose editor who has only edited to add and readd this material, is insisting that there be a "Controversy" section in this article. The section cites only a vague Word document from 2005 and webpages from https://sites.google.com/site/thenaitway/, a self-published website that doesn't appear to be anything approaching reliable. In addition, the section is also poorly written with multiple grammatical and spelling errors. So without even getting into the materials complete lack of neutrality and the author's clear bias, this material doesn't belong here. ElKevbo (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

How about you stop the bizarre ad hominem attacks and address the very serious problems with WP:RS and WP:N? ElKevbo (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, got your way with bullying and intimidation. How much NAIT is paying you? How much was the cost to scrape clean filth off the NAIT's facade? I hope it was worth losing your integrity. 67.246.74.96 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

ElKevbo made no attempt to bully or intimidate. All I see is the reverse bullying that is so common these days and hurts those that have truly been bullied. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a good one. REVERSE BULLYING! It is the era of Trump, the era of shamelessness.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.124.223.244 (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Section "controversy" is properly referenced according to the guidelines

As opposed to what User "ELKevbo" ELKevbo claims, the section is well-referenced and is according to the guidelines. The references direct to the websites (including the own institution's website) containing downloadable solid materials which corroborates the claims made in that section. Regarding the claim made on the section being poorly written, a minor edit (which I doubt to be necessary) rather than complete deletion could have worked as well, but "ELKevbo" insisted on deletion without seeking any feedback after only few minutes of review. This is a copy of the edit log:

21:03, 18 March 2016‎ ElKevbo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,430 bytes) (-3,471)‎ . . (→‎Controversy: on second thought, this doesn't appear to sourced or written very well) (undo | thank)

21:02, 18 March 2016‎ ElKevbo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,901 bytes) (-4,398)‎ . . (→‎Programs: per WP:UNIGUIDE) (undo | thank)

21:01, 18 March 2016‎ ElKevbo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,299 bytes) (+3,471)‎ . . (rv undiscussed removal of pertinent, sourced material (whitewashing?)) (undo | thank)

20:44, 18 March 2016‎ ContentCorrection (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (20,828 bytes) (-3,471)‎ . . (Removed content) (undo | thank) (Tags: section blanking, Visual edit)

As it clearly evident from the above log, at 20:44 User "ContentCorrection" ContentCorrection deleted the section "Controversy". At 21:01, 17 minutes later, User "ELKevbo" restored the deletion and commented "white washing!". Then at 21:03, just 2 minutes later User "ELKevbo" deleted the section and commented second thought about the writing and referencing. Now, please tell me how could a mere 2 minutes of review suffices to check and read and download references. In my book, that is clearly being biased. Today, User "ELKevbo" deleted my restoration again without any due process of discussion, then invited me to discuss the matter after the fact. After checking his own talk page, I decided not to involve myself in a discussion forum where rudeness and vulgarity uncontrollably roams free. As you see, in his recent post above on my introduction, I have been targeted, attacked, insulted, and mocked in a very unsavory tone again. I will not get into discussion with an individual who enjoys mocking others, and ulterior motives seem to be his driving force. Section "Controversy" is just necessary to be here to show the solid facts about the institution. The section is solidly referenced according to the guidelines.

Mtadridgy (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Editted: Mtadridgy (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither reformatting your comments without adding anything nor logging out to edit war are effective ways of answering the questions asked above or making your case in any way. You are liable to be blocked if you continue these actions and it's highly unlikely that the material for which you are advocating will remain in this article. ElKevbo (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You are just out of line. As a woman, I have experienced bullying and stalking, and what you are doing now feels like cyber-bullying and cyber-stalking. I feel very uncomfortable and threatened. Anyone can help me with how to report this inappropriate behavior? This individual is fixated on me and does not go away. I have given him my response, still he does not go away.

Mtadridgy (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I took a few minutes to drink a glass of water and to calm down. After seeing his taunts again this morning, it felt like having a panic attack. Anyway, my hands are not shacking as before. I had a very interesting dialog with another user last night. It seems that many institutions need to sanitize their image online and especially on Wikipedia. I was informed that abuse both sexually and physically are rampant throughout higher education, and the case with NAIT is by no means an isolated occurrence. I was told by the the user that to sanitize their appearance, there are agents to hire who do their dirty job of removing damaging articles and restoring their public image (white washing). Now, it makes perfect sense, the actions depicted on the edit log that I have posted above, seemed very fishy and scripted. Anyway, Please let me know how to report cyber bullying, taunting, and stalking here on Wikipedia at your earliest convenience.

Mtadridgy (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It's reprehensible that you would try to equate questions asked in this Talk page with serious issues like stalking and sexism. Cut out the wild, baseless accusations and deal with the issues at hand related to the sources you've cited and the text you've edit warred to insert. ElKevbo (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that the sources given, especially the Geosites, are not valid as Wikipedia:Reliable sources. For example using just one quote, Suddenly, his blood started boiling inside his veins. He got up angrily and walked out of his office. How does the author know that the persons blood was boiling. There my be real problems at NAIT, and I expect there probably are, but they can't be addressed by a group of unsupported accusations. Now I realise that you may feel that you are being ganged up on by a couple of male editors so I will ping Rosiestep and Anna Frodesiak who are two well respected female editors to give their opinions. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to leave a link to the Controversy section that this is about. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed the sources used in that paragraph and agree with CambridgeBayWeather: they are not valid as Wikipedia:Reliable sources (RS). While the allegations in the sources provided are disturbing, and I empathize with your personal experience, Mtadridgy, content on Wikipedia -especially controversial content- must be supported with RS, so deleting the Controversy section was the appropriate thing to do in this case. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)