User talk:ColumbiaAlumnus

넌 영어 그레케 잘헤서 Columbia 같은 Lower Ivy school 을 다니냐 쪽팔리지않냐 ? 하긴 college 나 GS 나 같은 수준이긴하지.

June 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ElKevbo (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Columbia University. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have opened up an sockpuppet investigation to check on your assertions, though.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello ColumbiaAlumnus. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Columbia University School of General Studies, you may have a conflict of interest, or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * 1) Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * 2) Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * 3) Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * 4) Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Katieh5584 (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive Editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  F ASTILY  (TALK) 19:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like you were blocked for edit warring at Columbia University School of General Studies a few days ago. You resumed activity today, to repeat the exact same actions that resulted in a block on your account in the first place. Since it seems you are only interested in disrupting Wikipedia, you are blocked until you decide you are ready to contribute constructively.  - F ASTILY  (TALK) 19:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/ColumbiaAlumnus for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 19:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you went to Columbia, you would understand the difference between "infinite" and "indefinite". Maybe see WP:GAB ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 23:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I never said they were the same, smart one. I definitely wasn't implying it either. That's simply the message that I got from the admin who blocked me. He seemed to be inferring that I would not be able to contribute if I was doing what I was doing. I didn't really think what I was doing was wrong. I was just expressing my confusion at the other editor's 1 week block. That's all. "If you went to Columbia, you would understand the difference between "infinite" and "indefinite"." Let's say that I did imply it though. I suppose it would have been too difficult for a douchebag like you to just note the difference. Instead, you condescend me and imply that I probably didn't go there. You seem to be awfully talented at making supposedly witty conjectures and acting big on the Internet while hiding behind your 'big' computer screen and Admin status. Try that kind of douchebaggery out in the real world amongst the elite and the real 'big' shots, you low-class nobody. Are you happy with your life? Feel free to reply, but just know that it will be in vain because I've decided you're obviously not worth my time. Bye!
 * That was way out-of-line. I guess this is really goodbye, because your talk page access has been revoked. Take care. --  At am a  頭 00:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)