User talk:Wisdompower

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Wisdompower, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for List of University of Toronto people. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! A8 UDI 02:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. A8 UDI 02:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I love it here. - Wisdompower

Reversion

Hi, sorry it's taken so long to get back to you. That revert was my mistake, I've gone ahead and striken the tag on that IP's talk but (assuming it's your IP) feel free to go ahead and delete it. While I'm here I may aswell expel what limited advice I have regarding your talk page message. Firstly, it really helps if you link to the article in question, especially if your contributions list is substantial. Simply put the article's name between two pairs of square brackets ([[ARTICLE NAME]]) also, if you type four tildes (~~~~) it will sign your posts, which is also really helpful. Thanks for your contributions so far, you've made a lot and they look very good (despite what I previously said!). Cheers, raseaC^{talk to me} 23:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Trivia

Wisdompower, you might wish to review Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia:Trivia sections, which explain the policy on trivia and miscellaneous information. Basically, being true does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in articles. Jphillips23 (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Why do other universities have the right to create "Trivia", when the University of Toronto does not? Why is the entry for the University of Toronto so special, in a negative sense? Plus, why is the entry for the university generally so 'weak'? Let's just look at the alumni entries of the University of Michigan, University of Chicago and so on. Why are their alumni lists more complete? We should look look at other entries and see if we're not being relalatively too brief and so to speak, 'weak'.

3RR

Wisdompower, please be aware of the three revert rule and don't blindly revert. Both Freshacconci and I reverted your change on grounds of verifiability. Please read WP:V for what constitutes as verifiable, which is based on reliable sources and not digging up some Internet links or stating personal opinion.

You can see that the article already includes both U of T as well as Toronto, which should be enough to satisfy your points. There is no need for more redundancy, unless you want to go add Michigan University to University of Michigan, Chicago University to University of Chicago, California University to University of California and "XXX University" to every other "University of XXX". Otherwise it is entirely unnecessary to reorder the words. And if you attenmpt to do this at those university articles, the editors there will probably give you the same response. Jphillips23 (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdompower, please again read WP:V. A piece of information is not verifiable simply because you've heard it from people as "proof". Read WP:V for what is meant by reliable sources. Until you understand that please do not revert again, per WP:3RR. Thanks. Jphillips23 (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of article

Dear WP: Please see my comment on the List of University of Toronto Peopl talk page. In short, that list has Never been limited to UofT graduates, but to people significantly (and notably) associated with UofT. (I started editing that page several years ago, so I have a sense of history, but you can always click on the History tab at the top of the article.

Thus, organizing it by date of graduation won't work properly. I suggest alphabetization by last name within section. Please respond on the article talk page, not here, or my own talk page. Thanks for all the work, and sorry to make more. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Influential

WP, I understand, but without casting aspersions, I'd bet that there are more Influential people on that list, who weren't labelled as Influential. So we don't want to single out. The criterion for such lists has always been "Notability", of which Influential can be a key component. Thanks for all our hard work. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. For scholarly influence, "Harzing's Publish or Perish" freeware is a good initial and quick way to sort out influentials. It only works comparatively within fields, as humanities folks write books, social scientists write long articles,and hard scientists write short articles. Leading to different citation rates. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetizing Lists

Okay, I understand. It may sound like a somewhat idealistic question, but is there a software that enables lists (full of names) to be alphabetized?

Wisdom, A couple of things come to mind.

One tricky one is to copy a list from a section, and then run it thru Word's Sort procedure. It might work, but with *[[ in front, it might not. I haven't checked.

If it doesn't, try one of the relevant WPedia help desks. I don't where to go, but Administrator's Noticeboard, altho the wrong place, might guide you to the right one. I just found this, which may be a useful start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents

When you've found the answer, i'd love to know, altho in the other lists I edit, we've been careful from the start to edit/alphabetize. Good luck. Bellagio99 (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I'm just gonna alphabetize little by little, that way it's not going to be that time consuming.

Please respond to a complaint at the edit-warring noticeboard

Hello Wisdompower. See WP:AN3#User:Wisdompower reported by Me-123567-Me (talk) (Result: ). Your response is requested in that thread. Can you tell us if you have also been editing with an IP address, as some have claimed? EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Login always please

It would be nice if you logged in as Wisdompower whenever you edit. There is suspicion attached to IP users in general, and especially to those who are suspected of using the IP address as a sockpuppet. I'm not suggesting that was your intent, but the optics are not good. Good luck. Bellagio99 (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at List of University of Toronto people. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But your change wasn't approved by others. No one allowed you to remove everyone from the list. If you wish, you might as well request wikipedia to delete the whole article. Or if you're staying true to your principle of requiring a citation of some sort to everything in an article, then you should remove everyone from all the alumni lists of world renowned universities. To be honest, I think you're using wikipedia rules to attack one university that you hate (for some reason. you might have been rejected). People like you are exacerbating wikipedia's already bad enough reputation.--Wisdompower (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about your edits at List of University of Toronto people

Your use of an IP on a contested article, in addition to your registered account, is technically a violation of WP:Sockpuppetry. Plus, I don't see you offering your changes for discussion on the Talk page. If this continues, you risk being blocked. Please wait to get consensus for your changes. Wikipedia is not your personal web site; you are expected to sincerely negotiate to get others to support you. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any significant change (apart from adding new people). Hence, I felt there was no need to gain any general consensus. I wasn't making any dramatic change that would require a discussion and approval. And about my use of an IP, I don't have any reason other than that my computer is slow (and hence I often skip the log-in procedure.) --Wisdompower (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom and Me: I've asked you for a last time to stop the Edit warring, which is basically initiated by Me, IMHO. I hate to keep running to WP:ANI, but will if Me keeps up with his behaviour. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at List of University of Toronto people. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

You have continued to revert after warnings (see above). This article was was recently discussed at WP:AN3. You've also been reverting several other articles. You are expected to wait to get consensus for your changes. EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection

Wisdom, you asked me about getting the article protected against Me's tactics. I think it's a good idea, but I doubt that they will allow it for this long. You should go to Administrator's Noticeboard and tell the story that you want to do the edits, that it's better to leave the names up until you do, but because the pressure of school, this won't be till mid-April. I personally think Me is acting uncivilly, but my opinion doesn't count for much. I am not an Admin. You can still write to the Admin Notceboard, I believe, while you're blocked. It's sad to see your hard work destroyed, but I'm guessing you're an undergrad, and you have exams and papers to focus on. Good luck. Bellagio99 (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My misteak. You should go to Dispute Resolution first.Bellagio99 (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom, what happened to the edits that you had promsied to do back in March? Bellagio99 (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation

Your math lefts out two categories (after & researchers) in the new Harvard total, so I reverted your edits on List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. XFEM Skier (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't count the two other categories. We didn't include them for other universities' counts. So why should we include them for Harvard?

Spot checking the lower ones (~20-30) on the list they count all categories. XFEM Skier (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Let's just leave the page where it was before I touched.

June 2014

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. XFEM Skier (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University of Toronto campus merger

Please see the talk on the University of Toronto page about merging all three campuses.Davidhar (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]