User talk:ColumbiaAlumnus
넌 영어 그레케 잘헤서 Columbia 같은 Lower Ivy school 을 다니냐 쪽팔리지않냐 ? 하긴 college 나 GS 나 같은 수준이긴하지.
June 2011
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ElKevbo (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
ColumbiaAlumnus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, I was involved in a dispute and in the process of discussing a conflict concerning the Columbia University Page. However, my opponent proceeded to sabotage the page in order to ignite a bigger conflict. I, therefore,resorted to un-editing his changes. This person was apparently rejected from the Columbia School of General Studies, and has resorted to creating many different Wikipedia accounts to sabotage all pages related to the school. This person does not even attend Columbia University. Although I understand if you reject my appeal, I feel that appropriate actions should at least be taken against my opponent. I was simply undoing his intentional sabotaging. He does not want other people to apply and attend this school. Columbia GS is an official undergraduate program at Columbia that grants the BA or BS. However, this person has argued for its equation with the School of Continuing Education, which does not even grant a bachelor's degree. In my opinion, he is the one to be permanently blocked. ColumbiaAlumnus (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
None of this is relevant. You are blocked for edit warring, and nothing else. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- I have opened up an sockpuppet investigation to check on your assertions, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello ColumbiaAlumnus. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Columbia University School of General Studies, you may have a conflict of interest, or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Katieh5584 (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY (TALK) 19:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)- It looks like you were blocked for edit warring at Columbia University School of General Studies a few days ago. You resumed activity today, to repeat the exact same actions that resulted in a block on your account in the first place. Since it seems you are only interested in disrupting Wikipedia, you are blocked until you decide you are ready to contribute constructively. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
ColumbiaAlumnus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I admit I was edit warring with the other editor, and I will try to 'edit constructively' to the best of my efforts from now on. However, all I ask is that you consider some significant facts and circumstances that surround this conflict. This person is knowingly introducing deliberate factual errors after rejection from the school. I was just trying to revert his edits. (I did not initiate this edit war.) I spoke with him about the issue, but he ignored my requests and is still quite upset about it. I am the only one who actually tried to discuss the matter with him. I see he has been blocked for 1 week. He is the one stirred this pot in the first place. I did not and am not attending the subject school so I am unbiased concerning this issue. However, I feel Wikipedia is about providing neutral and credible facts, not deliberate errors and lies made by a denied student. (For example, he is quick to note that School of Continuing Education is actually a college when it is not. As you would expect, he does go there.) In other words, I actually care about the truthful array of facts here on Wikipedia,while the other editor has his own interest on the line. I appeal my block. Thank you.
Decline reason:
As established at the sockpuppetry investigation below by checkuser, you've also been abusing multiple accounts. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Sockpuppetry case
[edit]
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColumbiaAlumnus for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
ColumbiaAlumnus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Obviously, my block was and is warranted because I took part in edit warring and the use of multiple accounts. However, these were done to combat a vandal. With this fact in mind, I should at least be blocked within a time limit. The guy who was actually vandalizing the pages had at least 9 accounts! How much did he get? 1 week block. I combated his efforts by reverting his vandalism and how much am I getting? An indefinite block. This isn't justice. I don't come here to wreak havoc or cause problems. I genuinely want to contribute and portray what's right. I'm not asking to be unblocked. I'm just saying that I've gotten blocked indefinitely for doing what I thought was genuinely just and that I eventually deserve to contribute to this website just as much as anybody else here. The other guy has vowed to edit again once again once his block expires. According to him, he has "beaten me" and is mocking me as I type this. Please put yourself in my shoes before you dismiss my requests so easily.--ColumbiaAlumnus (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Not a chance. You've moved beyond simple disruptive editing, into sockpuppetry and block evasion. That's the kind of behavior that gets a person banned, not just blocked. Reverting vandalism is not an excuse. -- Atama頭 23:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- If you went to Columbia, you would understand the difference between "infinite" and "indefinite". Maybe see WP:GAB (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I never said they were the same, smart one. I definitely wasn't implying it either. That's simply the message that I got from the admin who blocked me. He seemed to be inferring that I would not be able to contribute if I was doing what I was doing. I didn't really think what I was doing was wrong. I was just expressing my confusion at the other editor's 1 week block. That's all. "If you went to Columbia, you would understand the difference between "infinite" and "indefinite"." Let's say that I did imply it though. I suppose it would have been too difficult for a douchebag like you to just note the difference. Instead, you condescend me and imply that I probably didn't go there. You seem to be awfully talented at making supposedly witty conjectures and acting big on the Internet while hiding behind your 'big' computer screen and Admin status. Try that kind of douchebaggery out in the real world amongst the elite and the real 'big' shots, you low-class nobody. Are you happy with your life? Feel free to reply, but just know that it will be in vain because I've decided you're obviously not worth my time. Bye!
- That was way out-of-line. I guess this is really goodbye, because your talk page access has been revoked. Take care. -- Atama頭 00:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)