User talk:Lydhia

September 2015

Hello, I'm I dream of horses. I noticed that you recently removed some content from University of Chicago  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 23:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Lydhia, you are invited to the Co-op!

Hi there! Lydhia, you are invited to The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please join us! I JethroBT (I'm a Co-op mentor) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

University of Chicago

You seem to have something against the University of Chicago. The first line in the lead is cited by so many sources, and has precedent on the Harvard and Stanford pages. Furthermore, the editor El Kevbo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ElKevbo), in the Stanford University section said that this kind of language is not considered boosterism, if it is indeed cited. Is it wrong to say that Chicago is top ten in the world in the three major rankings? Of course not! It's true. Please stop removing sourced material, under the guise of removing "boosterism."

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at University of Chicago. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Contributor321 (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)