User talk:Beboj3140: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:35, 26 July 2016

University of Oslo

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. X4n6 (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at University of Oslo

You've been warned per the result of a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Beboj3140 reported by User:x4n6 (Result: Semi, Warnings). If either of you reverts the article again witout a prior consensus on the talk page you may be blocked. If you are also using an IP to make edits to the article, you are risking a block under WP:SOCK. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Hello, I'm Sminthopsis84. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Sporangium have been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Reducing the readability Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at University of Oslo, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. misrepresenting the date of the information given in the cited source Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Beboj3140, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Feel free to delete things from your talk page. The assumption is that if you delete a message, then you have read it, so you can have a clean slate again. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Your recent editing history at Switzerland 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 article's 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. Dr. K. 14:07, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland discussion moved to your talk page

Switzerland

your new corrections are fine, but ETH is named two places now both as Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich and further down as a new introduction ETHZ isn't that confusing? also sayin St. gallen is one of the best in europe (ranked 15 or something in business) is also an opinion for that matter university of zurich and ETH is ranked 3 and 10 in europe overall should we also write that they are some of best best in europe. it is biases to just write for someBeboj3140 (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I did was restore the source which listed both the Institute and the University of Zurich in its rankings. Since the article is about Switzerland, it made no sense to remove the ranking for the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich and leave the ranking for the University of Zurich. Especially since the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich actually ranked significantly higher according to that source.

Also, if you feel that two different names are being used for the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, may I suggest that in each case, you list the full name, followed by the initials in parenthesis. As most readers are unlikely to read the entire article, doing that each time should solve the problem. So for example: "Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETHZ)" if that is appropriate. X4n6 (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes good idea regarding ETHZ i can do that. regarding st gallen i dont agree that it should say one of the best in europe because we could write that for EThZ and university of Zurich as well since they are higher ranked overall. since we choose not to write them as some of the best in europe the statement for st. gallen should also be removed (sorry didn't know how to answer you back on my own talk page, so that i could be sure you would read it)Beboj3140 (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beboj3140 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this back to your talk page so we can keep the discussion in one place. I've also bookmarked your page for the period of this discussion, so I will know whenever you respond here. I'm glad you like the idea about the ETHZ. Feel free to make those corrections. I also agree that the reference to St. Gallen being among the best in Europe should also be removed if it is not reliably sourced. We try to avoid personal opinions and and unsourced comments that violate WP:NPOV. If someone includes a legitimate source to make those kinds of claims, then fine. Otherwise, editors should remove them whenever they see them. Also, when you're added sources, if you can, please try to follow the format, rather than just putting the links between <ref> marks. That just leaves it for others to fix. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if ETHZ is stated as being ranked among the best in europe so should university of Zurich (ranked 11th in europe according to ARWU. They are both ranked very high since more than 5000 universities exists in europe an more than 20000 in the world. also Zurich is a member of LERU with cambrigde and Oxford among others. please also note that continental europe is without Britain so actually they are both ranked even higher there Beboj3140 (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you just show the rankings, which clearly say they are "listed 20th and 54th respectively," in the world rankings. Nor just Europe. So that already shows they are ranked highly. So it's really not necessary to say more. The reader will know they're among the best because of their rankings. Anything more is just unnecessary and unsourced comments. I think you can trust the readers to know how high those rankings are. X4n6 (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i mean under the picture. i would make more sense to just delete the last bit of it being among the best in continental europe.Beboj3140 (talk) 11:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I left it, is because it was consistent with the descriptions of other photos in the article that gave some detailed information in each caption. But you if'd like to remove it, that's fine. X4n6 (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Could you do it i seem to delete the whole picture?

Do you really object to that caption that strongly? X4n6 (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind i figured it out. thank you for your help by the way

I saw you removed it. That's fine. I just didn't understand why it bothered you so much? Since it was sourced. Also since it was like all the other photos in that section, which list an important thing about each photo in the caption. X4n6 (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i just don't find the statement neutral when it could just as well have been written to one of the other universities.

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 : Never mind i figured it out. thank you for your help by the way
 ::I saw you removed it. That's fine. I just didn't understand why it bothered you so much? Since it was sourced. Also since it was like all the other photos in that section, which list an important thing about each photo in the caption. [[User:X4n6|X4n6]] ([[User talk:X4n6|talk]]) 11:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
+: i just don't find the statement neutral when it could just as well have been written to one of the other universities.