User talk:208.120.47.96: Difference between revisions

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Mykungfu (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Arbitration Requested for St. John's University (NY) Article and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Following your reversal of my minor, neutral, factual edits on the St. John's University article, I have requested arbitration. I do believe that everyone should be able to contribute to this in a fair, balanced way, understanding that "balanced" does not refer merely to what we as individuals prefer to see. Thank you for your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorkborn (talk • contribs) 15:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to the discussion page in regards to disputed content. You have told others to go (and they already have gone there) yet you personally have not participated. So again please go to the discussion page. Thank you. NyRoc (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the revision. I did so, because of the fact that the 2009 ranking for St. John's University is already there for that category. Placing the 2008 and 2007 ranking for that same category is outdated as the most recent ranking is already there, thus making them irrelevant. I even asked the University page for clarification on the issue: [1] Furthermore, placing the history of rankings will only clutter the article. If you put the history of that, then why can't one put the history of rankings like the Washington Monthly? It will become a needless chore. Also, in regards to the Washington Monthly ranking, that is the most recent one that is available as from what I can tell. Thus, once the newer one comes out then it can be updated to reflect that. Hopefully this will clear up any misunderstanding. NyRoc (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was absolutely no reason for you to delete the other rankings, the school award, or the alumni intro. You have taken such a minor argument and turned it into something so unnecessarily vindictive. Its obvious from dealing with you now and those couple of months ago that you have some weird grudge against the school and you seem to be relentless with it. There is simply no reason to behave this way. I ask that you return the rankings to normal. My only issue was placing the previous rankings for a category that was already there and updated too. Thats it. I didn't delete the category, I just wanted it to remain up to date and not clutter the article because if you do the past year rankings for one ranking then all of them have to be done. So please will you stop this needless animosity. No matter how bad you make the article look, the school isn't going to implode. NyRoc (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article for the school is locked and the discussion page awaits you. NyRoc (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editor: You have been making several edits to the List of largest United States universities by enrollment and List of largest United States university campuses by enrollment articles. I have reverted several of your changes along the way. Let me make a few comments about why:

• Most recently, you have added CUNY to the List of largest United States universities by enrollment. There are a few issues here. First, there are technical issues: you added info from 2007-2008 to a list that is specifically from 2006-2007; you added the school to the bottom of the list which is out-of-order (if is #2 then why didn't you put it in the #2 slot?); and you added external links instead of the WP reference format (see WP:CITE]]). These issues make your contribution 1) Not accurate, and 2) not helpful.
• You also reverted a change I made to the introduction of List of largest United States university campuses by enrollment, in which I tried to make the specific point of each page clear. In fact, you are the reason I made those changes, as I assumed that you were simply confused about what each list was supposed to be. My edits were quite simple and were consistent with WP:BOLD. The biggest issue with this is that another editor came and undid your reversion and restored a lot of the edits I had made to the intro. You blindly reverted that editor's changes as well. In fact, you are the one who should be discussing this on the talk page. Reverting edits without comment is not appropriate under Wikipedia's guidelines.
• Finally, I saw the message you left for me. I in no way claim ownership of these articles, but I do insist that the information placed on these articles be accurate and the edits constructive. If you would like to try to have me blocked for that, I invite you to try. In the mean time, if you continue to blindly revert pages and add information that doesn't belong, or is in the wrong place, I will have the page protected against anonymous edits.

-Nick^talk 19:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ok cuny enrollment2007 is 231,602 [2] Alright my information is correct, i am not a great formatter but you can easily fix it rather than revert it.
• the page title does not discuss that there should be a simple point as to not count certain types of schools.
• you have been claiming ownership by changing things and not discussing it. you were being bold as is wiki policy but you have also not followed this guideline by not discussing it after it has been reverted. 208.120.47.96 (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on the discussion page of List of largest United States university campuses by enrollment -Nick^talk 19:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anon - please see further comments on List of largest United States university campuses by enrollment. There seems to be confusion about what you are actually arguing. -Nick^talk 21:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at List of largest United States university campuses by enrollment. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on London Underground‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --McGeddon (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

report http://toolserver.org/~slakr/3rr.php

Please see Talk:St._John's_University_(New_York)#Mediation_offer. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 208.120.47.96. A recent request for Arbitration which you were listed as a party for, "St. John's University (NY) Article", has been rejected by the Arbitration Committee. The reasoning for the arbitrator's refusal to hear the case may be viewed at the archived version at this link. If this is still an issue requiring resolution, you are encouraged to seek out other forms of dispute resolution such as a request for comment or Mediation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. For the Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]