User talk:Wikipedian05

Satellite campus

Hi. You commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satellite campus a few days ago. The article Satellite campus is now greatly expanded. I wonder if the changes would cause you to reconsider your opinion there. --Orlady (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Violation

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Keio University. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.142.75.49 (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

This is not a warning, just a suggestion. At Talk:Keio_University#Rankings you said:

"If you add LSE's ARWU ranking to London School of Economics, then I will accept your edit in this keio article."
"I don't mind whether it is included or not. But you strongly insist on the inclusion of ARWU. Then add it to LSE. Why do you hesitate? If you add it to LSE, then I will add it to this article too."
"But you insist ARWU should be added to every university article. Then add it to LSE. Then it will be added here too."
"But if he adds it to LSE, then I will accept the inclusion of ARWU here."

These demands or ultimatums are a form of argumentation which implies an prohibited attempt to take ownership of an article and which can be considered to be a form of WikiBullying. No Wikipedian owns any article or has the individual right to absolutely decide whether or not an edit will or will not be made or, if made, retained. To make this kind of demand or claim only makes it more likely that your actions will be seen as edit warring rather than editing by consensus. The same is true about making allegations about another editor's bias, real or perceived (a fault which was committed by all sides in the Keio debate, not just you). The bias of editors is almost (but not quite, see COI and SPA) completely irrelevant: as is often said here, consensus is formed by judging edits, not editors, and the requirement of neutral point of view is adjudged on that basis. Engaging in WikiBullying or accusations of bias just detracts from the substantive arguments you may make about the edits and it is much to your benefit to avoid them. Best regards, and good luck with your editing — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, 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/Wikipedian05. Thank you. Colincbn (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"academic boosterism"

In this edit of 31 August, you restore a lot of stuff about how comparatively wonderful Keio is with the comment Why does this IP user delete many information without saying anything? stop vandalism. But in this edit of 11 September, you remove similar stuff about Tōdai with the comment deleting sentence per wikipedia policy on "academic boosterism". Which is it, Wikipedian05? Where is this policy, precisely what does it say, and how is it that it has such widely different implications for material in the two articles? -- Hoary (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedian05, I'm asking you about your edits. Please explain. -- Hoary (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now, by your understanding, does Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism rule out sourced, unadorned assertions that a university ranks number such-and-such on some scale that appears to be taken seriously? -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]