User talk:XXeducationexpertXX: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:00, 19 August 2020

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, XXeducationexpertXX. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism 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. Thank you. O3000 (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, O3000. There is an IP vandal on the Beto O'Rourke page who seems to be trying to bury his vandalism under a series of minor edits that don't improve the page. I have requested protection for the Beto O'Rourke page for that reason.XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should discuss with the IP. These edits do not appear to fit the WP definition of vandalism. O3000 (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were not intended as vandalism, but as preservation of WP:NEUTRAL with many spelling, formatting, grammar, and style fixes. Beto O'Rourke is not entitled to an article that reads like a campaign endorsement. Thanks for understanding. 2600:1015:B024:6D6B:9177:C89A:7480:C3C (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia University shield

You recently undid my revision correcting the Columbia University shield, claiming "The source you cited doesn't exist/deprecated". I don't want to start an edit war, so would you be able to explain what is incorrect with the link I provided: Columbia style guide? It is a pdf that comes directly from the university webpage and appears to be the latest guidelines on the shield, and it shows that the shield I had changed it to is the official university shield. The shield currently on the page appears to either be an old version or one associated with Columbia College, not the larger university, as the crown does not conform to the university's current crown identity guidelines, but does look like the College's official crown. I have also noticed in the current shield's file page that you have claimed the file as your own work when ideally it should be sourced from an official university source. Looking forward to resolving the issue, Jaydavidmartin (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The website you cited is deprecated i.e. it doesn't exist. The PDF you cited is outdated i.e. no longer used as the "style guide". See Columbia visual identity guidelines. Regardless, the style guide you cited states it is an "unofficial shield" not created by the administration. Provide a source that the shield you presented is the "official shield". XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response! I have looked at Columbia's visual identity guidelines (https://visualidentity.columbia.edu/) and I can find no instance of the shield you changed it to. The current version of the website shows no shield actually (the visual identity document I provided notes that the shield "is rarely used today...used only by the trustees for official purposes", so it is not unexpected it would not be listed), but the earlier style guide I provided shows the shield File:Columbia University Shield.png as the correct one. Your claim that the document states this shield is an "unofficial shield" not created by the administration appears to be erroneous, I can find no instance of this claim (in fact a search for the term "unofficial" yields zero hits); to the contrary, it states that the shield "was adopted by the trustees in 1949". Additionally, this is the same shield that was used on the page before

was deleted. You have asked me to "Provide a source that the shield you presented is the "official shield", and I provided what appears to be the latest documentation outside of https://visualidentity.columbia.edu/, which makes no mention of the shield. It actually seems more proper I ask you for a source justifying your shield, as the shield you provided is different from the old agreed-upon version (the same shield as in File:Columbia University Shield.png) and I cannot find any documentation suggesting that what you have changed it to is the correct shield. Indeed, it was even brought up on the talk page (Talk:Columbia University#Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2019) by another user that the shield you changed it to is not the correct shield. Could you provide any evidence that the shield you changed the page to is correct? Jaydavidmartin (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can provide a trusted and up-to-date primary source, which states that the dark blue shield is the official logo of the university then there can be no real conversation on this issue. The shield of Columbia University in the City of New York seems to have several variations all of which are used by the university for various purposes. Secondly, continued efforts to push a certain POV on the Columbia University Wikipedia article constitutes a WP:CONFLICT given you attend Columbia University in the City of New York. There have been a litany of issues on that page, specifically among Barnard College and School of General Studies students who feel the page is not "inclusive" enough. Your proposed edits don't demonstrate any real improvement to this goal. XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that I have provided documentation for the dark blue shield. I can find no documentation for the light blue shield and you haven't provided any. Given that the dark blue shield was on the page prior to the deletion of the file

, the burden of proof falls to you to justify why we should not keep the dark blue shield and instead use the light blue shield. And this is not to mention that I have provided what appears to be the latest official documentation from the university on the correct shield. If you can find more recent visual idenitity guidelines contradicting this, then the issue will be settled. As to WP:CONFLICT, re-reading the guidelines it appears I should have more openly disclosed my affiliation with the university. I have added Template:Connected contributor and a note about about my affiliation in my message on the section about this issue in Talk:Columbia University. However, this is not a debate that introduces any NPOV issues, as the Barnard and GS students editing the page for inclusiveness do (which I had no part of). It is merely about identifying the correct university shield, and I think this is a perfectly reasonable area for me to have made an edit, and certainly I can talk about it on the talk page. Best, Jaydavidmartin (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just quite literally cannot find the light blue shield anywhere but on the wikipedia page. The 2009 guidelines appear to be the latest guidelines on the shield. Even the official Columbia University store uses the shield I tried to change the page to (File:Columbia University Shield.png), not the current one, on all of its goods (e.g. glass, Men's shirts, Women's shirts). Jaydavidmartin (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I sound incredulous or frustrated, but from my point of view it looks like I have shown you the latest available university guidelines on the shield, which show that File:Columbia University Shield.png is the correct, official shield. This shield was also the shield that was on the page before the deletion of

. You have changed the shield and shown no evidence that the new shield is the correct one. But again I hope I haven't let my frustration show through in my language, I would like to resolve this respectfully. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the new secondary sources you cited above do not show the dark blue shield. They show the light blue shield. Evidently, the dark blue shield is not the official shield of the university given literally all of the school's official merchandise refuses to use it.XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly incorrect. You are mistaking the shade of color of the shield for the design (Columbia has several official shades of blue, as per their identity guidelines). The merchandise clearly shows the shield with the current Columbia crown present in File:Columbia University Shield.png, not the old crown (and current crown of Columbia College) in File:Columbia Shield.png Jaydavidmartin (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Your recent editing history at Columbia University shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. regentspark (comment) 15:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You recently edited the Columbia University page to put up the Seal of the Columbia University as a place holder until the conflict over the seal is resolved. The use of the Seal of Columbia University is not appropriate for this context as the use of the seal is only for representing items sanctioned by the Trustees of Columbia University. ^[1]

The Columbia style guide Blue 290 expressly states:

Do not use the University seal or shield as a stand-in for the logo or to represent the University as a whole. The seal is for official use only by the trustees. (Emphasis added)

Please if you would like to discuss this matter further, you are invited to add your input in the [page]. Please do not make further reversions or edits until conscience is reached.

Jbaer50 (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Your recent editing history at Big Tech shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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.

2600:1015:B06B:E036:74A2:B70A:431A:33CE (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2020 (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. Thank you.

2600:1015:B05D:E89E:558:7D67:48F3:68B0 (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV on Yale University

Hi, I noticed you were trying to apply WP:POV policy whilst there is an ongoing discussion over this exact topic, which you are engaged in at WT:HED. Whilst the conversation is ongoing, it is unhelpful to begin an edit war on the article. Thanks! Shadowssettle_(talk) 22:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as you know there is an ongoing discussion on WT:HED. I'm not bringing anything up here to discuss the issue at hand, but I do want to try and keep this WP:FUN. Your contribution to the consensus is welcome, however, I feel like it might help if you didn't let others make you forget what goes along with WP:CIVIL: WP:DBI WP:AGF Shadowssettle_(talk) 22:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning for edit warring. Do not restore your preferred version until a consensus is reached. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KinuI think it's pretty clear you are in the wrong here by reinstating disputed text. I'm in the process of filling out a report on your account for the edit warring noticeboard. We can discuss more on there. Thanks. XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... or you could actually contribute to the discussions at WT:HED or Talk:Yale University about this instead? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Kinu ^t/_c 01:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Hi, you might want to put at least something on your user page to prevent your account name redlinking. For better or for worse, many editors see a redlink as a sign an editor either is new or is just here for a single purpose. Adding a user page will not help you in any disputes you may be in, but in the long run it is likely to lead to editors more likely assuming good faith, which they should anyway, and giving the benefit of the doubt to possibly questionable but possibly okay, smaller edits. To get an idea of what a user page can look like, see some (fun) examples. If you do not wish to create a user page for a personal reason, that is fine, this is merely a suggestion. Thanks for contributing! Shadowssettle_(talk) 08:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. 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 and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Edits clearly related to this account are being made from 75.172.201.122 (talk · contribs). EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

75.172.195.50 (talk · contribs) also appears to be you from comparing the disruptive account behavior in "Big Tech" articles. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Brown University, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 02:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Drevolt (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is for edit warring at Columbia University and User talk:Drevolt, preventing a user from removing a warning you issued from their talk page, and for making personal attacks. Drevolt was blocked as well but your block is longer due to your having made numerous personal attacks. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Hi User:Swarm, thank you for your note and your recognition of wrong doing on both sides of this issue. I'd like to ashamedly admit that I did not know that a user could remove an Edit warring noticeboard warning from their own talk page – I naively assumed that it was Wikipedia policy that it had to remain on their talk page for both the awareness of the user and others. I'll admit that I can be overconfident in my understanding of Wikipedia policies and that going forward I must double check those policy before making claims such as the one I've made. With regards to the personal attacks, I think this was the result of not clearly thinking through my edit summary statement – the personal attack that I believe you're referring to was meant (in a poorly thought out and crude way) to highlight that User:Drevolt has a history of making POV edits/removing heavily sourced content on the Columbia University page. I did not intend to attack his personal character or insult him in anyway. Again, in a poorly thought out way I was trying to bring awareness to a POV issue that I was noticing. I will be far more careful in how I word my summaries. I should have made this statement in a much more neutral and less inflammatory way and I sincerely apologize for that.XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=''Hi [[User:Swarm]], thank you for your note and your recognition of wrong doing on both sides of this issue. I'd like to ashamedly admit that I did not know that a user could remove an Edit warring noticeboard warning from their own talk page – I naively assumed that it was Wikipedia policy that it had to remain on their talk page for both the awareness of the user and others. I'll admit that I can be overconfident in my understanding of Wikipedia policies and that going forward I must double check those policy before making claims such as the one I've made. With regards to the personal attacks, I think this was the result of not clearly thinking through my edit summary statement – the personal attack that I believe you're referring to was meant (in a poorly thought out and crude way) to highlight that [[User:Drevolt]] has a history of making POV edits/removing heavily sourced content on the Columbia University page. I did not intend to attack his personal character or insult him in anyway. Again, in a poorly thought out way I was trying to bring awareness to a POV issue that I was noticing. I will be far more careful in how I word my summaries. I should have made this statement in a much more neutral and less inflammatory way and I sincerely apologize for that.[[User:XXeducationexpertXX|XXeducationexpertXX]] ([[User talk:XXeducationexpertXX#top|talk]]) 15:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)'' |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=''Hi [[User:Swarm]], thank you for your note and your recognition of wrong doing on both sides of this issue. I'd like to ashamedly admit that I did not know that a user could remove an Edit warring noticeboard warning from their own talk page – I naively assumed that it was Wikipedia policy that it had to remain on their talk page for both the awareness of the user and others. I'll admit that I can be overconfident in my understanding of Wikipedia policies and that going forward I must double check those policy before making claims such as the one I've made. With regards to the personal attacks, I think this was the result of not clearly thinking through my edit summary statement – the personal attack that I believe you're referring to was meant (in a poorly thought out and crude way) to highlight that [[User:Drevolt]] has a history of making POV edits/removing heavily sourced content on the Columbia University page. I did not intend to attack his personal character or insult him in anyway. Again, in a poorly thought out way I was trying to bring awareness to a POV issue that I was noticing. I will be far more careful in how I word my summaries. I should have made this statement in a much more neutral and less inflammatory way and I sincerely apologize for that.[[User:XXeducationexpertXX|XXeducationexpertXX]] ([[User talk:XXeducationexpertXX#top|talk]]) 15:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)'' |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=''Hi [[User:Swarm]], thank you for your note and your recognition of wrong doing on both sides of this issue. I'd like to ashamedly admit that I did not know that a user could remove an Edit warring noticeboard warning from their own talk page – I naively assumed that it was Wikipedia policy that it had to remain on their talk page for both the awareness of the user and others. I'll admit that I can be overconfident in my understanding of Wikipedia policies and that going forward I must double check those policy before making claims such as the one I've made. With regards to the personal attacks, I think this was the result of not clearly thinking through my edit summary statement – the personal attack that I believe you're referring to was meant (in a poorly thought out and crude way) to highlight that [[User:Drevolt]] has a history of making POV edits/removing heavily sourced content on the Columbia University page. I did not intend to attack his personal character or insult him in anyway. Again, in a poorly thought out way I was trying to bring awareness to a POV issue that I was noticing. I will be far more careful in how I word my summaries. I should have made this statement in a much more neutral and less inflammatory way and I sincerely apologize for that.[[User:XXeducationexpertXX|XXeducationexpertXX]] ([[User talk:XXeducationexpertXX#top|talk]]) 15:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)'' |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

^ http://www.columbia.edu/files/columbia/content/blue290.pdf

[1] ttp://www.columbia.edu/files/columbia/content/blue290.pdf

[1]

@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''72 hours''' for persistently making [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive edits]].  Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}. &nbsp;[[User:Swarm|<span style="color:black">'''~Swarm~'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:DarkViolet">{sting}</span>]]</sup> 05:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-disruptblock -->
 *This is for edit warring at [[Columbia University]] and [[User talk:Drevolt]], preventing a user from removing a warning you issued from their talk page, and for making personal attacks. Drevolt was blocked as well but your block is longer due to your having made numerous personal attacks. [[User:Swarm|<span style="color:black">'''~Swarm~'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:DarkViolet">{sting}</span>]]</sup> 05:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
+{{unblock | reason=''Hi [[User:Swarm]], thank you for your note and your recognition of wrong doing on both sides of this issue. I'd like to ashamedly admit that I did not know that a user could remove an Edit warring noticeboard warning from their own talk page – I naively assumed that it was Wikipedia policy that it had to remain on their talk page for both the awareness of the user and others. I'll admit that I can be overconfident in my understanding of Wikipedia policies and that going forward I must double check those policy before making claims such as the one I've made. With regards to the personal attacks, I think this was the result of not clearly thinking through my edit summary statement – the personal attack that I believe you're referring to was meant (in a poorly thought out and crude way) to highlight that [[User:Drevolt]] has a history of making POV edits/removing heavily sourced content on the Columbia University page. I did not intend to attack his personal character or insult him in anyway. Again, in a poorly thought out way I was trying to bring awareness to a POV issue that I was noticing. I will be far more careful in how I word my summaries. I should have made this statement in a much more neutral and less inflammatory way and I sincerely apologize for that.[[User:XXeducationexpertXX|XXeducationexpertXX]] ([[User talk:XXeducationexpertXX#top|talk]]) 15:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)''}}