User talk:Collegeisreallycool

Welcome!

Hello, Collegeisreallycool, 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.

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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collegeisreallycool, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Collegeisreallycool! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! ChamithN (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I only made one revert so I couldn't have violated a 1 revert rule.

Accept reason:

My apologies. My computer seems to have glitched and showed the same diff twice. I have unblocked your account. Mike V • Talk 23:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike V: I don't see what the first edit is reverting to either. —Cryptic 20:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Community settlement (Israel) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Community settlement (Israel) was changed by Collegeisreallycool (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.863219 on 2015-02-22T05:45:09+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOUND

Is there a reason you have followed another editor to multiple articles solely to revert their work without explanation? nableezy - 16:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

College Democrats of America

Please read the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, and the 'due and undue weight' section in the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, note that citing highly partisan sources and blogs is unacceptable. If as is claimed this incident was "widely covered", cite coverage from mainstream sources, and note that material must accurately reflect such sources. And if such sources cannot be found the incident should not be included. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Caller is a mainstream source. USA Today is also a mainstream source. All of the content in the Truth Revolt is also in the Daily Caller, so we could remove that but I think it is better to include both since Truth Revolt broke the story.