User talk:PrincetonNeuroscientist

Welcome!

Hello, PrincetonNeuroscientist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Columbia University. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Dthomsen8 (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Columbia University. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your claim of my "vandalism"

Really. I can't believe you went around the world to report my "vandalism". Just because Columbia's Nobel laureate dropped from 104 to 99? Ok, since you want to talk, let's talk.

0) I can tell you that the old 104 count for Columbia was given by me. In the old version, there used to be a lot of miscounts for Columbia, including 101, 120+, etc. I kindly recounted every column for Columbia, taking account of repetition in different columns, and gave the number 104. It was long time ago.

1) In this new version of Nobel count, the only changed in the criterion is the special lectureship (as I explained in the introduction). Many universities would invite famous speakers like Nobel laureates to give a "lecture" on their campuses, and sometimes the universities give these speakers a title of "XXX lecturer". These are NOT affiliations by any means. In fact, in the old version, only Harvard and Columbia widely counted such "special lecturers" as affiliations and no other schools had this issue. So, in the new version, the counts of Harvard and Columbia dropped (> 4) mainly because of the correction. On the other hand, the counts for other schools changed little (< 4), and the change was mostly due to miscount in old version (I carefully recounted them all).

2) The major change in the new version is thus the way of representing the affiliations of laureates. I regrouped/restructured the table columns so that they now clearly convey the most important information. In particular, the new structure with 3 categories (students, long-term staff, short-term staff) is a widely accepted concept in academia - in fact it is how research universities are built upon nowadays.

3) Finally, no other universities have ever reverted or argued or reported my edits like you did. In a way, this is the consensus . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimumbias (talk • contribs) 08:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand how the Wikipedia community functions. Vandalism is vandalism regardless of the size of the change. Wikipedia articles are not yours to manipulate towards a specific conclusion. Nobel University Affiliate page is not going to follow a criterion laid out by a random user who is unqualified and lacks the necessary authority. Authority on Wikipedia comes from public sources and consensus among editors on Wikipedia. Further, the Nobel Prize Foundation does their own official count and the Nobel University Affiliate page has been dealing with the issue of count for years now. They settled long ago on the conclusion that the unofficial university count would determine the ranking and the official count by Nobel would be in parenthesis. As for your comment about a "3 category structure" - it's completely fallacious. I'm an associate professor at a research university and no such "categorization" exists. As far as I'm concerned no such system exists at my colleagues' universities either. Also please sign your comments. (PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

- I highly doubt your ability to reason. It is you who is making vandalism right now. I deleted the incorrect affiliation, and restructured the page by making it better. And but the way, I am a Nobel prize winner (emeritus) at a top 10 university in that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimumbias (talk • contribs) 17:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism has taken a humorous and unexpected turn. I guess anyone can be anything on the internet nowadays. Instead of constructive debate you've decided to engage in ad hominem attacks. Your behavior has already been noted and I am currently reviewing the NUA page with two other users who are deciding how to proceed. You have made massive multi-edit vandalism and it will take some time to revert. We all agree that you have offered an insufficient count that has been hashed out in alternate forms for several years on that particular page. Your claimed authority has no weight on Wikipedia though it is evident that you have none. This is evident merely through your demeanor and offered rationale for particular edits. Regardless, as with other scholars who contribute to Wikipedia, I am not allowed to simply change things on the Neuroscience wikipedia page purely because my work is in Neuroscience. Your edits are completely personal and as I stated above incorrect. Please sign your comments. (PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

- Can you even be reasonable? The only change in the criterion is the special lectureship. Every university in this case can be claiming Nobel laureates by inviting them to speak on their campuses. This is fallacious. And again, this is the only change - I simply removed some of these affiliations from the old version. Just reason with your mind. I'd personally been to dozens of universities to give talks, should I be affiliated to all of them?? Minimumbias (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're digging yourself a deeper hole with each remark you make. You fail to grasp the function of the Wikipedia community. This is not about making deals with Wikipedia users in order to achieve your personal conception of a Wikipedia page. You can continue to appeal to your false authority it has zero weight on Wikipedia regardless. This is about the massive multi-page vandalism you are engaging in.

- Since everyone is able to edit Wikipedia, everyone is entitled to point out and correct the possible mistakes in the pages. It another person thinks the correction is in fact not reasonable, he or she can change it by GIVING REASONS in the talk page. Now, throughout our conversation, you have not given me anything that shows my view "special lecturership is not affiliation" is incorrect. How can you keep using the "collective acceptance" idea to force me to quit? I am one of the people who is responsibly editing the page. Just reason with your mind carefully. Minimumbias (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are presently under administrative review. All of these posts and the misunderstanding of Wikipedia protocol that they demonstrate will be used to evaluate your case. In the meantime I would recommend not engaging in further vandalism and sock puppetry as it could increase your chances of receiving an indefinite ban, which would prevent any user in your IP from editing regardless of what account they use. Thank you for your understanding. (PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

- In particular, you seemed to have put yourself in a position of defending the public, without using evidence or proof. But again, we are talking about reason and evidence - since everyone has the right to edit it, that's the ultimate thing that can help people reach consensus. Minimumbias (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are presently under administrative review. All of these posts and the misunderstanding of Wikipedia protocol that they demonstrate will be used to evaluate your case. In the meantime I would recommend not engaging in further vandalism and sock puppetry as it could increase your chances of receiving an indefinite ban, which would prevent any user in your IP from editing regardless of what account they use. Thank you for your understanding. (PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

- I have completely no idea of what "sock puppetry" you are claiming is all about here. And you are now just using "administrative power from Wikipedia" to threaten me and end the conversation, instead giving any evidence or argument or whatsoever reasonable to convince me. Again, we are not debating, but you are just ending this forcing your continuous claim of "my vandalism" on me. You are the person who is not being constructive. Minimumbias (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to comment any further until your case has been evaluated. Thank you for your understanding. (PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

January 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rafael Nadal. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am more than familiar. My edits are not disruptive in the slightest. ESPN is the most preeminent sports journalism institution in the United States and perhaps the world. Citing a comprehensive ranking of tennis players which includes Rafael Nadal is both pertinent and constructive. If you have an issue with the location of the information in the article, we can discuss this further on the talk page. This being said, it is evident you have personal bias as demonstrated by your own talk page in which you cite Rafael Nadal as your favorite tennis player. Threats against my editing privileges will be met with fierce opposition and a presenting of the evidence against you. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There will be no "presenting of the evidence against me" – I have started a new section at the Rafael Nadal talk page for you to have your say. I don't like new users who think that they know everything and can speak to other editors, old and new (as in the above section), as they please – particularly when they only have 69 edits to their name, many of them reverts. So if your plan is to start making this discussion personal, it will not last long. Making claims of bias, just because I say on my user page that I like Nadal and am trying to preserve his page, are completely unfounded. I gave you a warning, not to threaten you, but because you are reverting instead of discussing, which is considered disruptive – I have now asked you twice to discuss on the talk page, so please don't sit back and think that I don't know to do the same. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"You don't like new users who think they know everything" ... "if your plan is to start making this discussion personal". Quickest self-contradiction I've seen in a while. The evidence will be presented against you because the only bias surrounding the Rafael Nadal edit is your own. You're evidently using this situation to defend your favorite tennis player instead of acknowledging one the most well reputed broadcasting organizations in the world owned by one of the most reputed entertainment conglomerates in the world -- Disney. You have decided to make this personal by the very nature of your basis for revert edits. You falsely imply that I'm inexperienced as editor - you're a seventeen year old who - as you mention - supports Rafael Nadal. You of all editors should not be labeling edits as disruptive when you are actively engaged in such personally charged edits. I have presented more than enough justification for the use of the ESPN citation. Please see the talk page. I will be reverting back to my original edit with the ESPN citation - of which you reverted. I will reiterate for you here: claiming ESPN is not a credible source demonstrates an anti-American bias. 8 of the top 10 players in ESPN's ranking are non-American - this only sends your argument further out the window. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am with you PrincetonNeuroscientist. It should be noted that this user 4TheWynne has also engaged in several opinionated pro-baised edits of the Maria Sharapova article, because he is a self-professed Maria Sharapova fan. Most of his edits on that page are lies and false-narratives of factual events or data aimed at distorting events to make Sharapova's tainted reputation look good to the reader, which is quite disturbing and far more disruptive than anything. Then when he is questioned and checked on his behaviour, he results to crying wolf, making threats, and making false reports to administrators to get people blocked. He has shown himself to be completely immature and a bully, using the privileges he has accumulated over time on Wikipedia to preserve Sharapova's page with distortions of truth and false narratives, while attacking new editors who are simply trying to make corrections and edit in good in faith. I have also noticed a lot of his edits of the Serena Williams page which are based on an anti-Serena agenda and prejudice rather than a neutral point of view. I am among many editors who have noticed the hypocrisy, bullying and disruptive behaviour of 4TheWynne on Wikipedia, and I do hope there is a good administrator out there who won't abuse his or her power to keep letting this disruptive user get away with his behaviour. He will probably petition for me to be blocked, but good on you for standing up to him and checking his despicable behavior, PrincetonNeuroscientist. License2k (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed notified your blocking administrator of your presence again, License2k, so don't even waste your time being a keyboard warrior – I barely skimmed over the abuse you've thrown at me this time around. Look, I can admit to being wrong which, in this particular case, I have, but you're taking this way too far with the bias claims. Attempting to use the information on my user page against me, like you did with this first edit (including the mention of depression, regardless of whether or not you edited it out), was never going to help argue your case – that information stays there. Just stop the editing pattern of reverting with very little discussion and taking shots at people, and you'll go a long way on Wikipedia, if that's what you've set out to do. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kid don't wag your finger at me about taking shots at people. Look at your previous post on my talk page. I don't intend to "go far on Wikipedia" as nobody should. I will, however, edit out biased claims from Rafael Nadal's biggest fan. You've decided to put that information on your talk page - it's fair game. It seems that your biased claims have also extended to the Sharapova page. You have a history of integrity issues on here. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Shkreli

Judging by social media, Martin Shkreli, the 32-year-old chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals, may be the most hated man in America right now. [1]

Is there a particular reason why you assume that the sentence in our article refers to the source headline rather than the quote above from the body (actually the tagline) of the cited article? Grammar would dictate that since "The Most Hated Man" is not an award or title officially bestowed on anyone, it should be reproduced in lower case rather than suggesting it is the name of some formal designation. Also, as it happens, the BBC is not in the practice of using title case for its headlines, and we respect the practices of our sources, American grammar aside. See WP:ENGVAR. General Ization ^Talk 22:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Months ago, one-time hedge funder and pharmaceutical executive Shkreli was branded the 'most hated man in America' after hiking the cost of his HIV drug [2]

I gave you the benefit of the doubt because it was unclear whether you were referring to the "title" of the sourced article (i.e., its headline) or to the epithet being used to describe Martin Shkreli as a "title". Obviously it now appears the latter. Would you like to explain to me why you think the epithet should be capitalized when neither Fortune nor the BBC think so? And why, by your logic, Federer should not also be described as "The Greatest Player of All Time" versus your edit here, which has subsequently been reverted? (You may be a neuroscientist, but you appear to be relatively new here, and it would behoove you to listen to, or better yet engage with, other editors who it would seem have been here substantially longer.) General Ization ^Talk 23:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Federer reference was a direct quote by John McEnroe. The source is a video. If you would like to capitalize McEnroe's statement I have no issue with that. I don't intend to assign myself any intellectual authority on here because of my profession or username. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, before you again refer to any other editor here as "warring", I encourage you to read what that term means. The very act of my attempting to discuss this question with you here means that I am not "warring" with you in any sense that the term is used on Wikipedia. You might also read WP:NOTBATTLE while you're at it. General Ization ^Talk 23:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 14 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Martin Shkreli page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Nadal additions

Please discuss and help us figure out the best way to word the ESPN and quoted info on Rafael Nadal instead of reverting at least three different editors. The lead is not the place to put this info and any of the quotes. We were thinking about a legacy section to put all of these items. But constant reverting gets us nowhere and you're at your limit of 3 anyway WP:3RR. Don't go over that! Perhaps together we can find some better wording and placement for all the info. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverted by an editor who self-proclaims that his favorite tennis player is Rafael Nadal and another user who's edit history and content of the Nadal talk page demonstrate he is editing in support of Nadal. Keeping the claim regarding Agassi and McEnroe on the page constitutes alternative facts. Both McEnroe and Agassi have now argued that Federer is the greatest ever (see the sources I have provided. If you continue to revert back to the edit, which claims these two tennis legends argue that Nadal is the greatest you will mislead the public and get us nowhere. I have no problem with a legacy section -- create one and add the ESPN article. It's that simple. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 13:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:PrincetonNeuroscientist reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: ). Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah good job with that! XD PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can ignore it. I dropped it. It appears you can change the Nadal article to however you wish, whenever you wish. Revert away and good luck to you in all your editing endeavors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, PrincetonNeuroscientist, you most certainly cannot. The discussion is very much still going – I'm certainly not finished, anyway. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not really in a position to tell me what to do. I'm not finished making people aware of your overt bias and I'll be sure to call you out on future edits. It must be tough for you having both Federer and Serena crowned the greatest of all time in a period of two days. I'm so sorry. Maybe you should write a fantasy novel about it (where Nadal and Sharapova win, get married and have you as their child). PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No bias in my edits – you're saying that just because I like those two players, and I edit their pages, that every edit I make to their pages reeks of bias? Have a listen to yourself. You might also like to stop confusing "talk page" with "user page" – if you're going to keep referring to it (not that it's going to do you any favours around here), you might as well brush up on your terminology. As for your first point – you're the one doing the reverting, and I'm certainly in a position to tell you to stop doing it. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bias is clear as day and noted by other users. You and James started the revert edits. I'm really not concerned with your petty concerns about my Wikipedia vocabulary. I realize you fixate on such issues in order to blind yourself to your poor practices on here. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've already admitted to being wrong about why the ESPN rankings should be included, but not about where – you seem to have forgotten that, even though you've just made mention of it at the discussion, which is weird. The resurfacing of the GOAT issue, and your reverts surrounding that argument, is what I'm trying to focus on, so again, stop going off-topic – and again, these silly little comments that you're throwing in here are not going to help your case, either. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nobody more guilty of "silly little comments" than you. You've consistently demonstrated examples of amateurishness throughout this entire conflict -- whether it be your overt bias towards Nadal and Sharapova, your claim that other users have no clue what they're doing, your petty comments about terminology, or your inability to identify the issues at hand (as above). You've randomly decided to bring the ESPN claim into this discussion -- are you falsely assuming my last comment didn't take into account the fact that you were hilariously wrong about ESPN?

The issue currently being addressed is your attempts to silence users who disagree with you. Stop behaving like a badly behaved child simply because you don't like certain facts about your favorite tennis player. This isn't one of your fantasy novels. Further, I'm pretty sure the administrator realizes your hypocrisy. As with your previous Sharapova conflict, you've initiated this edit war with your revert edits. Just to reiterate, I plan to make other users aware of your tarnished history when future edit conflicts involving you arise (and they most certainly will). PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on how this discussion has panned out, I can't say that I have done much wrong. If "the issue currently being addressed is my attempts to silence users who disagree with me", you really need to think of a better argument, as that one has already been thrown out. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PrincetonNeuroscientist:, this edit was over the top. Please try and keep it civil. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 19:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Shkreli

I have started a new discussion in the proper place to discuss this dispute. Please come share your thoughts on the subject. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 18:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring about Rafael Nadal

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PrincetonNeuroscientist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The justification for my block is in opposition to what the previous administrator concluded. I haven't made an edit on the Rafael Nadal page since a consensus was reached surrounding the dispute over the ESPN reference. I agreed not to include the ESPN reference in the article's introduction. Said consensus was reached through discussion on the talk page. I recommend you read Fyunck's back and forth with J^♯m PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're no longer blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Who is the previous administrator? And the current block is for breaking the WP:3RR rule, which you did by making four reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J^♯m Please read his response to Fyunck. He dismissed my violation of the WP:3RR rule because of the prolonged period between each revert and because the other users were also reverting edits. What's more, the reverts concerned separate content - some were disputes over the ESPN reference (which was resolved on the talk page with my input) and the most recent one concerned an edit by another user who had provided an outdated reference. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dismissed your violation of 3RR? Nope, sorry. I did no such thing. I cautioned the other editor to not violate 3RR himself. He got defensive about it, so I had to waste a bunch of time telling him that he actually does need to heed 3RR. But this in no way constitutes dismissal of your violation of 3RR. The 48 hour block is almost expired. When it expires, we welcome you to come back and make positive contributions to Wikipedia. If your contributions are controversial and reverted, then start discussing the issue with other editors before just re-reverting the changes they disagreed with. Build consensus on the talk page. If that doesn't work, then come seek administrator assistance... but the build consensus process usually does. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 17:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did in fact dismiss the violation on the basis that 3RR was usually enforced when revert edits were made in quick succession. Please re-read your comments. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit to Columbia University page

Hi!

I've added Columbia College, Columbia Engineering, as well as GS and Columbia Business School into the introduction (I've left CLS/P&S); GS actually has a larger undergraduate population than SEAS, so I don't think it's that small anymore. It's also customary for all the undergraduates colleges to be mentioned (especially because there are only three) and I thought Columbia's Business School was notable enough to be mentioned in addition to CLS and College of P&S.

Just wanted to let you know, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenclaw0127 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Columbia University, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Please read WP:OWN. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read through WP:OWN. It seems you are not aware of the fact that you are vandalizing. Removing encyclopedic content for no reason or for the purpose of revenge is considered a form of vandalism on Wikipedia. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to look at the page history. I didn't remove anything. But even if I had, and even if it had been "for the purpose of revenge", it still wouldn't be vandalism. Please read WP:Vandalism, especially "What is not vandalism". — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:Vandalism yourself - "Removing encyclopedic content for no reason". You are really not keen on supporting your arguments with data are you? PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Your recent editing history at Columbia University shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Softlavender (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Columbia University while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits.

Thank you for your recent contributions to the GS page! I've made some minor edits and cleaning-up myself. IcarusLivesX (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]