Talk:Saugeen–Maitland Hall

I think...

I think there is enough information about this residence to have its own page, including photographs, history, and general information. The Vince-alator 00:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have a picture of "The Hottub"? There was a pic of geocities a long time ago, but it's gone. For those who don't know, the hot tub is when you take someone's bedboard (although, I think with the new beds you can't do this) and lay it across the main showerstall entry. Then, you take some stolen plates from the caf, some caulk, and you seal up the drains and the bedboard to the doorway. Then, turn on the hotwater, grab some friends, beer and enjoy the hottub. (It's probably best if you wash the walls down first to minimize the disgustingness.)

Any thoughts or objections?

I plan on removing the hot tub and screw rule stuff etc. (latter part of the page). It just seems too trivial to leave in. Any thoughts or objections? Barry Wells 02:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the 'hot-tub' is a unique, and slightly crazy, phenomenon and should probably stay...if for no other reason, to encourage future generations to try it. ha ha

The Hot Tub routine sounds like something that could cause significant problems for everyone concerned (as in flooding and ceiling collapse) at Saugeen-Maitland Hall. In my view at least, it doesn't belong on the page, along with the so-called Screw Rule and most, if not all, of the Miscellaneous stuff. Barry Wells 19:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What was the screw rule? I lived in saugeen for two yrs in the 90s and never heard of it... Never tried a hot tub... saunas were fun though, cept a don tried to cause trouble for us supposedly cuz there were girls in the boys shower (as if the showers hadnt been co-ed all yr anyway) Btw, a sauna is similar to a hot tub except you put the bed board over the door (no caulk req'd) and just turn on all the hot water, drink your beer and enjoy. I heard that in yrs past, a hot tub actually did malfunction causing a great deal of water damage... dont know if its rumour or true though. Anyone know if jack is still the night watchman? -derek

Saugeen has their own wiki, right? They can put that stuff there. Adam Bishop 19:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The website probably would not be allowed to put anything that promotes the destruction of the washrooms because it is owned by housing. (as far as i know). Maybe if there was a "trivia" subheading then the hot tub info may be more appropriate. The Vince-alator 03:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I put the mirrors tradition back in because it is part of Saugeen and it's not trivial or useless. I lived there for 2 years and both times it was something a lot of people took part in. Check out the Ivy league school's pages; they have traditions listed in there. I also have a collection of Saugeen yearbooks ranging from 1983-2003. I think the bits of trivia about that residence is what makes it interesting and unique. Sarnya

Building a hot tub in the showers by using bedboards to block the entranceway to the showers and then taping around the sides and bottom to make a watertight seal has been done every year at Saugeen. You could only do it on a night when you knew the Floor Senior/R.A. and/or the unit Don were gone for the evening. Inevitably someone would be too hammered and break the seal, sending a foot and a hlaf of water rushing into the hallways out of both doors to the bathroom. The stench from the carpets over the next week or 2 was unbearable.Drywall11 01:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Drywall11

Good merger

Now that I see all content, including photo, has been merged, I agree with this merger of Saugeen Stripper. 70.21.144.18 17:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This seems a cleaner answer for the entire 'affair'. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now that we're keeping (no consensus, for now) the separate article for Saugeen Stripper, shouldn't we link to it from this article?? I'd rather discuss things here than get into another edit war. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Mirrors

I had another former resident of the building post this for me to prove it's not just 1 person's opinion. Sarnya

I have a bunch of stuff behind my mirror. I pulled out the mirror in a bunch of other rooms and many of them had lots of things behind them as well. The Vince-alator 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

pull out the drawers of your desk and look back there too... thats another time capsule spot -derek

I've taken out the mirrors section. It's unsourced, and probably not that unique to this residence. Here's the original section, in case someone wants to rescue it:

It is a tradition at Saugeen-Maitland Hall that residents leave a gift or some memorabilia behind their bedroom mirrors. [1] This tradition is not limited to Saugeen. Residents at Breen-Phillips Hall at University of Notre Dame have also taken part in this tradition. [2]

Maybe we can keep things like this (traditions, crazy pranks, hot tubs, etc.) on the talk page, at least until we can find it mentioned in the news somewhere. Rawr 04:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I know at least half a dozen people who found stuff behind their mirrors, which, once told to friends, resulted in dozens more doing the same thing at the end of the year. And that was in the mid 80's. It's hardly a Western-exclusive tradition, but it DID happen. Again, there's no Western Gazette or London Free Press article on it, so why don't you nitpickers just let it stand? Drywall11 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Drywall11

Eliminating the Party Image

The Vince-alator recently added this, and I removed it as being unsourced and (for the first part) unremarkable. My school allowed preferential dorm selection too, and we weren't an especially notable "party school". He asked for it to be put back in though, so I'm bringing it here in the hopes that someone can find a source for the rumor, and weigh in on the preferential ranking thing itself.

One of the reasons Saugeen is able to maintain a party image is mostly due to the fact that residents are able to almost choose which residence on campus they prefer to live in. The choice is done by ranking, in which the student (in the summer) ranks the order of residence they would want to live in. The higher the ranking, the better the chance is to live in that residence. How Saugeen is able to maintain such a large group of partiers is because the people who want to party and know about the history of Saugeen-Maitland Hall, choose Saugeen as their first choice. Thus, Saugeen is home to many partiers every year.

A rumour for the 2006-2007 year is that any student who chooses Saugeen-Maitland Hall as their first choice of residence on their application sheet, will automatically be placed in a different residence.

-- nae'blis _(talk) 17:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to say that the UWO party school image existed back to the 1990s. I graduated high school in 1999 in Toronto and even in 1999, I can recall hearing students younger than me talk about applying to Waterloo because they heard it was a "good party school." I'm not sure how much this has to do with Saugeen. I always thought it simply had to do with the fact that Waterloo is a relatively small town and thus students make up a large proportion of the population. 184.145.97.107 (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC) nerdlinger

Why does Rutgers care so much?

This article's being edited by a number of users whose IP addresses are tracing to Rutgers University. What I wonder about is why Rutgers cares so much about what happened at Western.

Even 6 to 8 months after the fact, IP addresses are still tracing to Rutgers for this article. Andy Saunders 20:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Maitland Original Use

I am writing to question the accuracy of this quote

Originally, in 1969, the living quarters of the men and women were separate: the men were in the Saugeen portion of the building and the women were in the Maitland portion, with locked doors between the two sections. (A few years later the men and women were put in alternating "units" -- three floors comprised a "unit" -- in the respective two sections of the complex. Later still, men and women were allowed to reside on the same floor, which is the case today.)

I am disputing this because the Maitland residence has urinals in both the male and female washrooms, if it were intended as a all female residence, they would likely not have included urinals, opting for a fourth stall instead.

any thoughts? --Jjones55 20:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I lived in Maitland in 94-95, and I seem to remember there being no urinals there. Maybe they recently added them? Both men's and ladies washrooms have one urinal on the Saugeen side. Regardless, the fact that it was originally two residences IS true... get yourself a copy of the 94-95 yearbook, which has copies of the old newspaper clippings. I'll be adding facts (with citations) from them to this article in the near future when I have the time. Rawr 15:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

fire?

My don last year mentioned a fire which burned most of the building, I don't kjnow when it was or how it started, or really anything about it, but I did see some pictures of a burned saugeen can anyone confirm this or provide more details?

--Jjones55 20:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

January 1984. Room 212. That room detroyed, the rest of 2 lower damaged by smoke. I'll post the rest of the details when I have some time. Rawr 16:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Leterman Top-Ten List

I've always regarded this as an urban legend. Somebody (User:216.221.76.221) just added this 'fact', along with some details about the incident. Do you have any sources? Nobody I know was able to uncover any truth to this, and the fact that it's a list of "Easiest Residence To Get Hitched In Under 3 Hours" makes one believe that it's not a typical Letterman list. Rawr 16:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

If memory serves me, the actual top ten list was entitled

"The top 10 best places to get laid in North America"

Saugeen, by virtue of being 1250 guys and girls in the same building and therefore the biggest co-ed residence in North America, was #1 on the list. I don't know where the footage can be found, but it would have been on a Letterman show that aired between 83 and 85.Drywall11 01:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Drywall11

New Stuff

I added a whole bunch of new info on the history of the residence, complete with citations. I also re-arranged the article quite a bit. Please feel free to edit and/or expand. Rawr 04:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Londonflag.PNG

Image:Londonflag.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Duke

An anonymous user keeps adding unsourced material to the Duke section about his origins. You may be able to swear that it actually happened that way, but without a reliable source, for all we know, you could have just made it up. Please include a source the next time you add this sort of thing in. Rawr 20:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I corrected what was entirely incorrect: "During its capture, it dropped dead from an apparent heart attack and the residence manager of the day had it stuffed and mounted and then gave it to the residents' council."

Who the hell wrote that? It couldn't be further from the truth. How do I know this is garbage? Because I was there. And you weren't. The residence manager, Peter McDermitt, hated all of us on the Residence Council. He hated frosh week. He was hardly thrilled that we brought a dead stuffed chicken into the residence and had 800 frosh worshipping it like a god.

I'm sorry the actual story of Duke's origins wasn't covered in a Western Gazette article.

Why can't you just leave it alone?

Did you even go to Western?

Drywall11 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Drywall11

• Yes, I went to Western and lived in Saugeen, but that's beside the point. Wikipedia doesn't allow WP:NOR, which is what your entry is. The fact that someone put something entirely different in the Duke section, then you contradicted it, illustrates that we don't have a reliable account of what happened. The only fair thing to do is remove it for the time being. It can always be added back in if and when you find a source to back up your claim. Saying that you were there and saw it with your own eyes isn't good enough for Wikipedia. I may believe you, but if some random person on the internet came to the page, read your facts, and wanted to verify it, they would have nowhere to turn to. I care about this page because I want it to remain in Wikipedia. If we allow it become a collection of rumours and heresy, then there's a good chance that it will be deleted. There are very few articles about residences here... actually, if you click on the "University Residences" category at the bottom of the article, it appears we're the only one. I know for a fact that Delaware Hall and Alumni House were deleted because they contained nonsense and unsourced information. It appears that you know a lot about Saugeen... please help us improve the article. If you're really passionate about telling the Duke story, you can find a reporter (perhaps at The Gazette) who'd be interested in hearing it. When it's printed, you'll have your source that you can cite. Rawr 07:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the fair thing to do is leave it up, because I can get 3 or 4 dozen people to verify the story. I can scan in photos and send them in. I can confirm dates and times. But why should I? That you feel like the policeman of the page is irrelevant and innapropriate. If someone wants to verify it, they can contact me directly, the person who submitted it. Unfortunately, that's going to have to suffice for you. Please stop being a jerk and deleting the submission. Just let it go. Thanks. Drywall11 18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Drywall11

• I'm tired of fighting this revert war. I've added some cleanup tags to the section. Please do not remove these tags until the relevant concerns have been addressed. I'm giving you some time to fix these problems, but keep in mind that unsourced material shouldn't stay in Wikipedia for very long, and may be removed at any time by myself or another editor. Please take the time to read the links I've posted on your talk page to familiarize you with some of the policies here. Rawr 17:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The story that Duke was lost at a Party in the 90s is false. I was a resident at Saugeen in 1999/2000, and a soph in 2000/2001. Duke was there during that time, and continued to be there when I left. In fact I was the one who took care of him during soph training for the 2000/2001 year. There are zoo soph facebook groups that I'm sure can verify this.

64.86.141.133 (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Duke didn't go "missing forever" in the 90's, he was still behind the front desk when I left Saugeen in May... Brianna08 (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Brianna and/or the contributor who claimed to be taking care of Duke in 2000/2001 - was Duke sitting on a 12 square inch piece of particle board? Was his neck in an advanced state of rot? Was he wearing Mardi Gras beads, a green bandana to mask his neck wound and a mini sombrero? If not, then this is not the original Duke. There is no way on earth the residence manager would allow a 22 year old rotting stuffed chicken (originally stuffed by my friends in the summer of 1986) to sit at the front desk. He was falling apart when we lost him at the 360 on Queen Street back in the late 90's at a Groundhog Day party. The end. If anyone has pictures, by all means upload them to one of the Saugeen facebook groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drywall11 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WHO DELETED THE SECTION ABOUT DUKE? AND WHY DID YOU DO THIS? Drywall11 (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Londonflag.PNG

Image:Londonflag.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Londonflag.PNG

Image:Londonflag.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Saugeen stripper

I have removed this photograph under the provisions of WP:BLP. It is an identifiable photograph of a non-public individual, involved in an incident that is not central to the article, and who has not given permission for the photograph to be used in public. DGG (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Says "striptease" but anyone has seen those photos knows there's nothing "teasing" about it. The "lady" in question is full-on nekkid (which I'm sure just cause another massive Google search). 24.24.211.239 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, she was still clothed in the picture that was in the article. And FWIW, there were also other identifiable people in the background. DGG (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Floor count

There are far less than 36 floors in this building. Can someone please fix this with an accurate figure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.69.189 (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There are 36 floors, 9 units on Saugeen, 3 on Maitland. 12 units in total, 3 floors per unit = 36 floors. --173.32.80.187 (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saugeen–Maitland Hall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100617145336/http://www.saugeenmaitland.ca:80/ to http://saugeenmaitland.ca/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saugeen–Maitland Hall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040909055324/http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/2003/November/14/news1.asp to http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/2003/November/14/news1.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)