User talk:Gmu1987

Are you attempting to remove content for a reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.220.97 (talk • contribs)

GMU

Done. See your talk page. Your rationale is applicable to your actions, particularly since it is you removing content... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmu1987 (talk • contribs)

AN/I

Hello Gmu1987. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. The discussion can be found under the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Vandalism/edit war on George Mason University. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

--Dynaflow babble 01:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coming close to 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on George Mason University. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --Dynaflow babble 01:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in the discussion on the Talk page before repeatedly adding the same article content

Gmu1987, you have been repeatedly adding the same content to the George Mason University article, substantially to the lead paragraph. Several editors have removed that content repeatedly, for reasons that appear to me to be consistent with Wikipedia policy, and have discussed their rationale on the talk page. It appears to me that a consensus has been reached that your information, while it may be appropriate elsewhere in the article, is not appropriate for the lead paragraph. If you want to debate the point, please do so on the talk page, not in an ongoing editwar on the main article page. Thanks. N2e 02:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate that there are more than one person convince my actions are "vandalism" or "one-issue-only", I am shocked at the draconian action of "banning" my handle and the IP (which is used by mutliple people). Is this the freedom of information Wiki intends?

What is the actual charge that is being levied against me? To my knowledge I have used no profanity, have posted only verifiable citations, and further, my citation was intended to promote, not disparage, GMU, that is is on a level playing field with other schools in the area -- only to have my post deleted over and over. I am frankly pretty disgusted at this point. It seems some have forgotten that Puffery is also POV. GMU1987

While I appreciate that there are more than one person convince my actions are "vandalism" or "one-issue-only", I am shocked at the draconian action of "banning" my handle and the IP (which is used by mutliple people). Is this the freedom of information Wiki intends?

What is the actual charge that is being levied against me? To my knowledge I have used no profanity, have posted only verifiable citations, and further, my citation was intended to promote, not disparage, GMU, that is is on a level playing field with other schools in the area -- only to have my post deleted over and over. I am frankly pretty disgusted at this point. It seems some have forgotten that Puffery is also POV. GMU1987

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gmu1987" --Gmu1987 20:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]