User talk:Boldstandard/Archive 60

January 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Barnard College. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. However, I do note that I reverted to the older version as one user was deleting 1,000 characters (Jan 19) without providing a valid explanation and further, it is not my preferred version but rather a version that was created by many other contributors on Wikipedia. I do respect contributions made by other users so I felt it was necessary to protect those contributions from deletion without a valid explanation.--Boldstandard (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

As such, please note that basically all I did was to revert the page to resuscitate deleted content. (Coed part that you have pointed out was written by other users, and I promptly corrected the information as soon as you notified me. Therefore, I have no preferred version but am rather trying to keep valuable contributions made by other users.) I hear that it is a standard procedure to revert edits, especially edits deleting some content, if there are no reason stated in the edit summary. I trust that you have notified that user as well and I do appreciate that as I can see that you are trying to be fair to everyone. It is unfortunate that the other user has decided to portray my reverts as trolls, though.--Boldstandard (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I see your lips moving but I don't hear you saying anything. Like it or not, the fact is that you were edit-warring to keep your preferred version of the article, reverting two different editors within 24 hours of restoring the material in the first place. And the material was incorrect, poorly written, and punctuated by somebody who doesn't understand English. But I understand, you didn't like the material, you just felt duty-bound to edit-war to keep it. Whatever. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I think there are other ways than just resorting to accusing tactics. Your way might be to criticize a user for having poor command of English, but I prefer to be respectful to the time they have spent in editing the article. I believe that erroneous information can be corrected, not deleted. My reason for reverting the article was because large chunks of information were being deleted without any explanation, and if you are accusing me that I was reverting the article to keep my preferred version of the article, it is very unfortunate. My goal is to keep valuable information on the page. And apparently, you have your preferred version of the article (otherwise you would not be editing the article since 2007). It is a very long period of time and I respect that. I note that you also seem to have a double standard when you allow the other user to revert as much as they want perhaps because the edits are in line with your preferred version of the article. If you have any further comments, I would be happy to discuss and I hope we can cooperate. Thank you. --Boldstandard (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Barnard College
Please read the documentation at Template:POV statement, which says in part:

You have yet to cite high-quality reliable sources that say anything different than what the article says. I know you interpret them differently, but they don't state anything that contradicts our article.

If you truly believe my wife having attended Barnard creates a conflict of interest for me, please visit WP:COI and read about how to deal with it. Repeatedly impugning my motives and casting aspersions is not the right way. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I have provided links from not only the Columbia website, but also the degree verification agency used by both Barnard and Columbia. If Barnard students receive a Columbia degree, we have to consider 1. why the agency draws a distinction between Barnard and Columbia 2. If the degrees received by Barnard and Columbia students are the same, why did Barnard not participate in DegreeVerify until 2006? I am citing two additional sources from the Barnard website which seems to directly contradict with your assertion.

"With the exception of Advanced Placement courses overseen by the College Board, and of International Baccalaureate work, courses taught in high school, either by specially trained high school teachers or college instructors, will not be credited towards the Barnard degree." http://catalog.barnard.edu/barnard-college/admissions/

"Choose your program carefully. Typically, only liberal arts courses offered by an accredited liberal arts institution are credited toward the Barnard degree" https://barnard.edu/node/9429

According to WP:ASSERT: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." If numerous comments on the talk page made by multiple users which clearly indicates that Barnard students receiving a Columbia degree is contested and disputed, along with the Columbia website, along with the distinction made by the degree verification agency, along with the Barnard website is not enough for you to voluntarily change the page to a fairer version for the readers, I think another person should review our arguments. To reiterate my point: "I think this is similar to territorial disputes, when you have a country pointing to one document to prove the possession of the land and have another country point to another document to prove their possession. In other words, the issue is inconclusive and when it is inconclusive, you do not have a Wikipedia page proclaiming say, Spratly Islands, as the territory of China." Thank you. --Boldstandard (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Columbia University. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Continuing to engage in a content dispute for which you were previously blocked for edit warring by edit warring on a new page, immediately after your previous block expired is disruptive. I've blocked you indefinitely because of this. You're free to request an unblock using the directions above, but you'll need to explain to the reviewing administrator what you will do differently before you're unblocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I have reasons to believe that the following IP editors are the same individual: User:47.196.135.17, User:73.158.170.153 (Editing both Columbia and Emory articles), User:2600:1010:B01E:E931:DD4C:4995:AD15:20CD (Editing both Columbia and Emory articles), User:2600:1010:b01e:e931:d5f3:a4ff:3663:21ac, User:2600:1010:b05b:10b4:6db7:2783:5a81:14d8, User:2600:1010:B055:8C71:BC3D:7C8A:AE47:9C73 --Boldstandard (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Also note 47.196.135.17 has been warned multiple times by multiple editors for disrupting editing.
 * The 47 IP geolocates to Florida. Two of the others you listed geolocate to California. The issue is that you went immediately back to edit warring an article you were previously involved in a content dispute on as your first edit after the block was removed (yes, I was notified of this by one of the IPs, but it is still an issue.) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * How about instead of "before reverting", you don't edit the article until you've established consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, then I will also add that I will not edit the article until I establish a wide agreement between other editors on the talk page. But I would also like to request that the above IP addresses be investigated because it gives other users the false impression that the view of the IP editor is widely supported when it is only written by one individual who is interested in editing both Columbia and Emory articles. I never use multiple IP addresses so this is unfair. --Boldstandard (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * FWIW, any admin can unblock under any conditions without consulting me. This was still on my watchlist, but I trust others to deal with the unblock, and prefer not to handle it myself. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)