User talk:CUfiveo

Your edit in CU page

The tag affiliate has been given by Columbia cufiveo. We are not here to do WP:OR and you are no one to warn me wikipedia is not your personal property that you will ask me to stop editing. If you are able then make it agreeable on talk page or bring permission from an admin as you are bringing new proposal its your responsibility. And if you are saying something to me atleast dare to tag me or knock me on my talk page and finally I told you that I don't need to understand what the meaning of affiliate that does not mean I don't understand. I said those word in a context, I meant I don't need to learn it from you. Bests ABCDE22 (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concensus was reached that if TC is in the grad school list it is inherently an affiliate(aka member)... thus shoving the word "affiliate" next to TC in the grad school listing is redundandant, confusing and unnecessary... not to mention it should be listed as faculties not grad schools to be best in line with the official Handbook CUfiveo (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus (see below). Sorry but really getting tired of repeating the same thing over and over again! --HamiltonProject (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone can go back through "On listing affiliates..." on Columbia Univesity's talk page and see that there was concensus on the fact TC being on the list made it inherently an afilliate... also you both admitted to not knowing what "affiliate" means which really makes it clear why you don't understand putting the word "affiliate" next to TC's grad school listing is redundant, confusing, and unnecessary... CUfiveo (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, CUfiveo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Teachers College, Columbia University, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Tacyarg (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My username is: Drkatzjr27. The member CUfiveo apparently requested that any and all edits I made to the topic page “Teachers College Columbia University” should be completely reverted back.

I made a significant edits to a page that was very poorly edited and written.

My actions were made in good faith and without any conflict of interest whatsoever.

The member then insulted me, stating that I should “Find something else to do with my time”

Surely insulting a member, who is simply a historian editing in good faith, is against wiki by laws. Drkatzjr27 (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Drkatzjr27, for making valuable edits and I apologize what CUfiveo has done. I am with you 100% and CUfiveo is the one being unreasonable here perhaps due to conflict of interest issues. Let's work together to ensure the accuracy of Columbia U and Teachers College articles. --HamiltonProject (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, CUfiveo. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Teachers College, Columbia University, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No coi 2603:9000:6504:12BD:C96:1E80:FD52:8BF6 (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest issues

I have replied on my page. As multiple users have pointed out, please do your best to disclose potential conflict of interests. Thank you.--HamiltonProject (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my page, thanks. --HamiltonProject (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever edited Wikipedia without logging in? Is this you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/47.196.137.104 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2603:9000:6504:12BD:54D:8B12:66E4:224F Are you using a Florida IP address to edit Wikipedia? --HamiltonProject (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Depends if I’m on my phone or computer 2603:9000:6504:12BD:1D2:14E4:C4AF:D435 (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you to log onto your account when you edit as it might be deemed as IP socking. Is the IP address starting with 47 listed above yours? --HamiltonProject (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CUfiveo. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.--HamiltonProject (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history 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.--HamiltonProject (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP socking

Please login to this account every time you edit articles. Failure to do so maybe deemed as socking.--HamiltonProject (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ElKevbo (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

One of your recent additions has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. El_C 21:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally copied from a CU Handbook... since being made aware of the potential copyvio the paragraph was completely changed and the source cited... CUfiveo (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing is scarcely good enough — you should write your own original prose. El_C 21:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you have probably learned at Teachers College, close paraphrasing is also considered plagiarism. I welcome the opportunity to discuss on the talk page of the Columbia article, that is, if you are willing to discuss. --HamiltonProject (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It had been completely changed to be in the users own words from what I saw... want me specifically to write it? Is that all that was wrong? CUfiveo (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to say your own words and not "in the users own words" to pretend like another user did it and that socking never happened. That just tells everyone that you know what you are doing is wrong yourself but continued to sock with intent. --HamiltonProject (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We already discussed everything, people just need to scroll up... CUfiveo (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are other problems, namely, ignoring recent official documents published by the university and using an outdated website from the early 2000s that is sometimes not up to date (see examples on Columbia talk page). Faculty of Arts and Sciences is comprised of Columbia College, General Studies, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and Professional Studies so adding all of them in the same list is "redundant" and will lead to confusion (see what I did here?).--HamiltonProject (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent official documents are the wording on random University websites... the official Handbook and Charters and Statutes is what you should be using... Columbia is officially divided by faculties not grad schools CUfiveo (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is based on the official policies of Columbia University. By the way, if the Columbia homepage is "a random university website", what happens to the old website from the 2000s that you keep on referencing (where you copied copyrighted material from)?. The Official Charters and Statues that you bring up make it clear that Teachers College is an affiliated institution but you are opposed to listing that. Even if we use faculties instead of schools, you realize that it does not change the fact that Teachers College is a separately incorporated entity under Columbia's official policy (see Policy Library) and should be indicated as such in the article, right?--HamiltonProject (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We already discussed this on the Columbia Univesity talk page ad nauseam... no one is arguing that TC isn't an affiliate(or member)... TC is officially a Faculty of the University according to the Handbook and their listing should be left alone... in the body however of the wiki the relationship between CU and TC should be fully and accurately described... CUfiveo (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is a faculty of the university and also a separately incorporated institution (according to Official Policies of Columbia, Official Charters and Statues call it affiliate institution) at the same time. Both facts should be mentioned in the list because if we do not, it is like showing only your eyes when taking a picture; we should show the entire face and writing 3 words: "separately incorporated institution" is sufficient in my opinion. --HamiltonProject (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need to indicate that in the Faculty list and not the body? TC is an official Faculty of Columbia University, you are just adding unnecessary confusion by putting a redundant label in the list next to it, especially when TC's presence in the list already indicates that it's an affiliate(aka member) CUfiveo (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are good with "separately incorporated institution" (as per Official Policies of Columbia) then? --HamiltonProject (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C you seeing this? What's your take? CUfiveo (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C see above CUfiveo (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to login

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. Thank you. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you can't win the argument attack the person...

Right? CUfiveo (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about when you accused me of working for Columbia's Office of Planning and Institutional Research (which you called corrupt/inept)? Thank you very much for pointing that out. --HamiltonProject (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You referred to to OPIR once as "we"... Why else are you defending them? If they don't list TC degrees how are they not either corrupt or inept? And I'm talking about all the ad hominem/bs violations on here instead of you guys actually justifying your position... CUfiveo (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are good at making up things but can you tell me where I said that? I am defending them because they are the official Columbia office and therefore should have the final say. --HamiltonProject (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far at least 5 other users say I am right and you are the only one defending yourself (COI, copyvio, sockpupetting, 6rr, blanking pages) so thank you very much. You admit that you were accepted to Teachers College and it is also conflict of interest for you to edit the article (this is based on your own admission on my page and not baseless accusations like yours) --HamiltonProject (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the bandwagon fallacy... CUfiveo (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about experienced editors including admins. Where did I refer to the Office of Planning and Institutional Research as we? Still waiting your response on that and nothing justifies your COI edits, copyvio, socking and blanking pages just because you do not like it. --HamiltonProject (talk) 01:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Columbia University, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jewish Theological Seminary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite partial block from Columbia University

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for disruptive editing. Note that you may still edit and make proposals for the article at the article talk page.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 12:36, 13 June 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

all my edits have been backed by solid CU official documents, everything has been discussed ad nauseum on the CU talk page and the edits were all reasonable and overdue, the only disruptive edits are coming from HamiltonProject and ABCDE22

Decline reason:

You've been significantly disruptive here. As you see no problem with your editing and your behaviour, there are no grounds to consider lifting the partial block. Yamla (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2020 (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.

User:Yamla what was disruptive? Everything I edit I discuss first on the talk page. All my edits are backed by solid sources? My intention is not to cause a disruption or damage in any way. I feel my edits improved the page greatly. What did I do wrong? Should I wait for more concensus on the talk page? The other users have been unreasonable when presented with solid conflicting sources... I urge you to read the talk page and see how much I have done to the right thing... CUfiveo (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome the opportunity to discuss on the talk page but you have not responded and started edit-warring with multiple users instead. The only consensus that was established is the fact that Teachers College is an affiliate and nothing else (see the talk page), but you keep on insisting that this fact should be removed from the list. --HamiltonProject (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed this ad nauseum already... CUfiveo (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No agreement was reached except for the fact that Teachers College is an affiliate, and you continue to delete this fact with at least 7 official university sources (and consensus). CUfiveo has been engaging in edit-warring with multiple users, IP socking, blanking Template:Education in the United States using those socks multiple times, copyvio and conflict of interest edits (user admits he was accepted to Teachers College). I request that the block be indefinitely sustained. --HamiltonProject (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We also had concensus that TC being in the grad school list proved it inherently an affiliate thus adding "affiliate" next to it is redundant... and concensus that you didn't know the definition of the word "affiliate" CUfiveo (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HamiltonProject has reverted to ad hominem/block requests since he can't win the argument legitimately... CUfiveo (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you can read my comments again. I said that if Teachers College was a non-affiliate, it would never be included in the list in the first place, but being an affiliate is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the school to be listed without any explanation whatsoever. Teachers College is a separately incorporated entity according to official documents, and that fact must be noted at the source that would cause confusion. I also said whether we understand the definition of "affiliate" is irrelevant as that is the word used by official university sources and Wikipedia policy forbids us from doing original research so we must use the same word used in the documents. --HamiltonProject (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not repeating our entire convo again here... it's all on Columbia University talk page... stop being unreasonable, you clearly have an agenda because you are only creating more confusion with what you are doing... CUfiveo (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite partial block extended to Talk:Columbia University

Per the report outlined here, I have also indefinitely blocked you from editing the article talk page. I think you have outlived your welcome as far as both the Columbia University article and article talk page are concerned — just yesterday, calling your opponents "liars," "bullies," accusing them of "vandalism," etc. Sorry it didn't work out. El_C 19:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Teachers College, Columbia University does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 00:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:GreaterPonce665 sorry I will from now on. I was trying to get the page preview hoverbox to display a picture. CUfiveo (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:ABCDE22 your last edit on the CU page was a good one, however, you wrote "conferred" and it should be "confers", just looking out... I appreciate your good judgement CUfiveo (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:RoySmith thank you for protecting the Columbia wiki. Unfortunately HamiltonProject is continuing their disruptive editing and vandalism in the Teachers College page by unjustifiably deleting info (even citations), even after their initial objections are fully dealt with... CUfiveo (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CUfiveo, I can't take sides. You'll need to work it out on the talk pages. You might find WP:3O to be helpful. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this page as I am explaining my edits on the Teachers College article. Simply put, the quote you inserted explains veteran enrollment at Columbia University; it does not demonstrate how this is directly related to the article in question, namely Teachers College, nor does it say that Teachers College contributes to those numbers.--HamiltonProject (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended

You were previously blocked only from Columbia University and Talk:Columbia University in order to give you a chance to demonstrate you could be constructive elsewhere. You haven't, you've just continued your fight via other talk pages. As such, I have extended your block to the entire project. --Yamla (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How am I "fighting" in other talk pages? CUfiveo (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting for the record that several IPs have been blocked for being you evading this account block by editing while logged out. That pretty much makes it a guarantee you will not be allowed back into the Wikipedia editors' community. DMacks (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Just another friendly reminder that block evasion using IP addresses (that start with 2603:9000:6504:12BD) is prohibited. Thank you. --HamiltonProject (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teachers College

Although you are blocked for multiple reasons, I am willing to discuss any of my edits. Please see this page as I am explaining my edits on the Teachers College article. --HamiltonProject (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CUfiveo. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]