User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

May 2008[edit]

Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Sauvignon vert. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Vianello (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

March 2013[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Viswanathan Anand. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. 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.MelbourneStartalk 02:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Stanford Nobel Prize winners[edit]

Hello, and thanks for your interest in the list of Nobel Prize winners from Stanford University. You have changed the number of winners from 58 to 60 on multiple occasions. However, 58 is correct, not 60. It's true that if you just add up all the listings for Stanford at List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, you get a total of 60. But looking closer, two of the names are listed twice, because they had more than one type of connection with the university. The actual number of unique names is 58. Please don't change this any more. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)