User talk:Funtimes101

October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, 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 text has been restored, as you can see from the. 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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand what you have a problem with. You criticize me for deleting referenced information (I shall give my reasons for doing so in a moment) and then you do exactly the same thing! How hypocritical! My reasons for deleting the sentence, which you for some strange reason seem to love, is that it was not purely historical as is clouded by emotion which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It would be fine to say that the University closed departments x and y etc - this is a statement of fact. However to say that something was controversial or that there is discontent etc is ridiculous because a) there were of course two sides to the argument and you do not mention the other side and b) it is history now and what's done is done so what does it matter anymore? it will be forgotten quickly enough. c) the reasons for the closures are not explained and there is no mention of the departments which have been expanded with the spare revenue. You must surely see that this is detrimental and that both sides of an argument must be given, but as the argument is all over now I do not see why it should take any space at all. Therefore I would ask you to either change your phrasing so that is simply states a fact e.g. 'In such and such a year the Physics department was closed' for example or to give the other side of the argument. I would also ask you to re add the information which you deleted about the Henley Business School as this was referenced and is completely true and verifiable. --Funtimes101 (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)