User talk:AspiringArtist

November 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Tau Epsilon Phi. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 76.189.101.221 (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Qwyrxian, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Previous account?
I've never met a legitimately new user who knew what 3RR was or that we have to give warnings for them. Thus, it is nearly certain you are a previous returning editor, or are using this as an alternate account. Please be "warned" that socking is inevitably caught and will result in a block.

As for the article, the hazing information has been universally rejected on the article's talk page--you're the one adding that in against consensus. That information cannot be included, because the problem was solved, no formal charges were filed, there was no evidence of significant problems, and the only report is in the Cornell school newspaper, which is only a borderline reliable source. Please do not confuse WP:NPOV as meaning "Whatever I think is fair". I've actually only reverted twice in the last 24 hours, so could legitimately revert your addition, but I'm going to leave it for a little bit and do some other things. If no one else has reverted in a while, I'll still remove it, because it's a blatant policy violation.

And finally, regarding the name, no one has explained why we should not include the name of the head of the organization, nor given a reason to include any other specific name as a "balance". Qwyrxian (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Your assumption that I am a previous user of wikipedia as well as other accusations is unfounded. The issue with Cornel is founded as information no different then the current lawsuit that was settled.  Using that logic then since all issues with the Tau Epsilon Phi lawsuits where dropped then that should be removed as well.

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)