User talk:208.47.163.34: Difference between revisions
→July 2016: reply |
→Columbia University: Responding to Malik |
||
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
:If you wish to continue this discussion, please start a discussion at [[Talk:Columbia University]], where other interested editors can participate. Thank you. — [[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] <sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 01:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC) |
:If you wish to continue this discussion, please start a discussion at [[Talk:Columbia University]], where other interested editors can participate. Thank you. — [[User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] <sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 01:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
Hi Malik, thanks for getting back to me. I'll follow your suggestion about starting a discussion on the Columbia University talk page after responding to you here. My proposed footnote provides additional (and what I consider interesting) background on Penn's founding dates (there are actually three of them, oddly) because they are directly relevant to Columbia's status as our nation's fifth institution of higher learning, the subject of this sentence in the lede paragraph of the Columbia page. Columbia University considers itself the country's fifth oldest college (after Harvard, William & Mary, Yale and Princeton); university marketing materials including its main website consistently make that point. And the vast majority of historians agree. However, there is a point of disagreement coming from the University of Pennsylvania which has constructed a somewhat convoluted train of thought to claim an earlier founding date specifically for the purpose of appearing older than Princeton and Columbia. That is a rather unusual state of affairs and, in my opinion, worthy of a footnote. If you disagree, that is your prerogative, but my proposed footnote is hardly controversial or off topic. It is very much on subject, so I would appreciate your not deleting it. I see that you are an alumnus of Columbia yourself, so perhaps you object to any discussion of Columbia's claim to be the fifth oldest college as an implicit questioning of that claim. I think that the tone of my proposed language makes it clear that Columbia's status as #5 is on completely solid ground. Certainly, almost all historians agree. Princeton was chartered in 1746, Columbia was chartered in 1754 and the University of Pennsylvania was chartered in 1755. The only people who disagree with this logic are affiliated with Penn. Princeton's own accounting of its status as #4 is consistent with Columbia as #5 and Penn as #6. So I don't think that any Columbia alumni should have any disagreement with the way that I've described this rather unusual and interesting aspect of American higher education. Thanks for your thoughts. Best, Laila |
|||
Revision as of 17:13, 27 July 2016
 Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! Your may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are unable to create an account due to your institution's IP address being blocked, follow these instructions. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your network administrator or instructor and request that your school contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using {{School block}}. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.
 Educational institution staff and network administrators wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. |
February 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Hovercraft, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Hovercraft was changed by 208.47.163.34 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2008-02-01T22:27:00+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Benjamin Franklin, you will be blocked from editing. --GoodDamon 20:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
April 2008
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Solar cooker. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JForget 23:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
May 2008
Your recent edit to Library (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! (Report bot mistakes here) // VoABot II (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Library (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! (Report bot mistakes here) // VoABot II (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Library. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Library (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! (Report bot mistakes here) // VoABot II (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to Library.
Any further vandalism will result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to Spanish-American War.
Any further vandalism will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. EivindJ (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.
March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Paschal candle has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to August 12, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Mumps has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Wikipelli Talk 21:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
March 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Mehmed II. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Haploidavey (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- 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.
July 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Westhill High School (Connecticut), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. J991 (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
April 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Ivy League, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
May 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of Transformers: Prime episodes, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
May 2013
Hello, I'm 069952497a. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Limerick (poetry) because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 21:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
April 2014
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Hartford. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. miszatomic 19:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Your draft article, Draft:Ferguson Library
Hello 208.47.163.34. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Ferguson Library".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Ferguson Library}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
June 2015
Hello, I'm Flyer22. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Little penguin because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Hello, I'm Hazmat2. Your recent edit to the page University of Pennsylvania appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Haz talk 12:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
July 2016
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Columbia University, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Hi Malik, thanks for your comments. As you may have already noticed, I added a few sources to my original text before you deleted them the second time. I would be happy to add more sources but, before I footnote every third word, I wonder if I could ask you if there is any particular statement I made that you find objectionable. To my knowledge, my content contribution is not particularly controversial. I would think it mostly of interest to folks like myself who are curious about the early history of American higher education. Furthermore, it's only a footnote as it is, not even in the main body of the text. If I proposed any content which you feel is either false or uncertain, just let me know and I'll try to either rephrase it or otherwise make you more comfortable. Fair enough? Thanks again for your thoughts. Best regards, Laila
Hello again Malik, I see that you've been back on the Columbia University page since I posted my message to you yesterday. I hope that means you've had a chance to read my thoughts and don't have a problem with them. Would it be okay if I reinstated my footnote to the page? Thanks again, Laila
Hi Malik, I'm not sure if you're checking this page periodically but, since I haven't heard back from you in many days, I'm going to take the liberty of assuming in this case that no news is good news. I hope all is well with you. Best, Laila
- Hello Laila. I reverted (undid) your latest addition to Columbia University. I see that you've added links to three websites at the University of Pennsylvania. None of the three mention Columbia University, the subject of the article. Nor do they support the one, somewhat trivial, sentence in your addition that relates to Columbia ("Columbia was the fifth institution of higher learning in the American colonies to obtain a royal charter and in the process become a legal corporation authorized to grant baccalaureate degrees (following Harvard, William & Mary, Yale and Princeton).") The rest of your addition is trivia about the University of Pennsylvania, and may belong in an article about that university. With or without sources, it doesn't belong in the article about Columbia University.
- If you wish to continue this discussion, please start a discussion at Talk:Columbia University, where other interested editors can participate. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Malik, thanks for getting back to me. I'll follow your suggestion about starting a discussion on the Columbia University talk page after responding to you here. My proposed footnote provides additional (and what I consider interesting) background on Penn's founding dates (there are actually three of them, oddly) because they are directly relevant to Columbia's status as our nation's fifth institution of higher learning, the subject of this sentence in the lede paragraph of the Columbia page. Columbia University considers itself the country's fifth oldest college (after Harvard, William & Mary, Yale and Princeton); university marketing materials including its main website consistently make that point. And the vast majority of historians agree. However, there is a point of disagreement coming from the University of Pennsylvania which has constructed a somewhat convoluted train of thought to claim an earlier founding date specifically for the purpose of appearing older than Princeton and Columbia. That is a rather unusual state of affairs and, in my opinion, worthy of a footnote. If you disagree, that is your prerogative, but my proposed footnote is hardly controversial or off topic. It is very much on subject, so I would appreciate your not deleting it. I see that you are an alumnus of Columbia yourself, so perhaps you object to any discussion of Columbia's claim to be the fifth oldest college as an implicit questioning of that claim. I think that the tone of my proposed language makes it clear that Columbia's status as #5 is on completely solid ground. Certainly, almost all historians agree. Princeton was chartered in 1746, Columbia was chartered in 1754 and the University of Pennsylvania was chartered in 1755. The only people who disagree with this logic are affiliated with Penn. Princeton's own accounting of its status as #4 is consistent with Columbia as #5 and Penn as #6. So I don't think that any Columbia alumni should have any disagreement with the way that I've described this rather unusual and interesting aspect of American higher education. Thanks for your thoughts. Best, Laila