User talk:Bain4weeks

'''Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! ''' Thank you for your contributions. You seem to be concerned that the article University of the State of New York gives insufficient recognition to the former external degree program now operated as Excelsior College. Unfortunately, by inserting your extensive text about this program into the main infobox and the introduction section of the USNY article, you have created undue emphasis on this program (which is already covered in its own article that is hyperlinked from USNY) and have obliterated part of the infobox. See Guide to layout for general pointers on structuring a Wikipedia article.

I have attempted to place your points into the article in a manner more consistent with Wikipedia article-writing standards. (See my comments at Talk:University of the State of New York.) However, because Excelsior College has its own article, I don't think it is necessary to have as much content about it in the USNY article as you attempted to add. Also, the wording you provided seemed like an advertising blurb, so I attempted to provide something more neutral and objective.

Here are some additional pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

--orlady 03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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 which gains a consensus among editors. You have not engaged in discussion to explain why your changes are important, nor what is wrong with my changes. Courteous people discuss things...--orlady 06:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss
In reverting all of my edits to the USNY article (edit statistic of -2,916), you said "Less the threatening emails - please! - I've restored the text so that it gives equal weight to opposing views. Tolerance and civility show prevail." I have not sent you any e-mails; rather, I have posted messages here and on the article's talk page. You, in turn, have replaced my sourced text with your unsourced text (you even have my reverted my spelling corrections), with the claim that your changes "give equal weight to opposing views." Resolving disputes advises: "The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself."If you wish to be treated with tolerance and civility, please explain what it is that you are concerned about, and why you are so committed to the text you have contributed.--orlady 13:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)