User talk:Hypernerd387

Loyola Jesuit College
Could you stop promoting Loyola Jesuit College? There is no relevance in who financed the place nor is there any relevance in standard facilities. The Banner talk 19:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Loyola Jesuit College
I am reporting "The Banner" for vandalizing the Loyola Jesuit College page. The page initially had information of the school's campus and history but The Banner has frequently deleted citing advertisement. I referred him to the pages of prominent schools like Harvard telling him that campus information and history is essential to any school's wikipage particularly Loyola Jesuit where funding was a major issue to the school's starting. I have restored the edits but they are still under "pending changes". All major statements have been cited. Please restore the edits and block The banner from making any other further edits to that page. I have asked The Banner to provide clear evidence that any of the information under Campus & History is advertisement because every other school included this information. For some reason, he seems to be stuck on editing the Loyola Jesuit College page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernerd387 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Hypernerd387. I have moved this discussion from Wikipedia talk:Vandalism because it is not the place to report vandalism (see the large template message in the heading of that page). Regardless, what you have is a content dispute, which is WP:NOTVANDALISM. But neither is it promotional (WP:NOTPROMOTION). The content Hypernerd387 is proposing to add is objective, unbiased, and free of puffery. Just because it might be overly detailed does not make it promotional. So what you have is an ordinary content dispute about whether the information is in Summary style and cited to Reliable sources. Please follow the guidance in Dispute resolution to try to resolve your dispute. --Bsherr (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * His intent is to make the College interesting to potential students. That is in my opinion advertising. The Banner  talk 23:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ow, and he is forumshopping: Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. The Banner  talk 23:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This information has been on wikipedia since 2009 or earlier. I never put it there. I was only surprised that you edited out the entire section which was why I undid your edit. I visited other schools to be sure the content was not promotional and found it was not. I am not affiliated with this institution although this is a prominent institution in Nigeria. What do I personally benefit from the institution been more or less attractive? This information has been out there for a while until you came to delete entire sections. I asked you for CLEAR OBJECTIVE evidence to show content is promotional and even referred you to pages of other institutions like Harvard and Stanford, you have not gotten back with an answer. Every statement on the section you cited is verifiable with citations included. It is comparable to other institutions. I still do not know why you insist on deleting these sections. May I note that from your talk page, you have been called a "deletionist" in the past. Please reread the guidleines and rules of wikipedia

Bsherr Please help remove the advertisement tag placed on the page. The Banner also keeps adding other tags. I have taken the matter to the dispute forum talk page.

February 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Loyola Jesuit 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. —— SerialNumber  54129  14:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

This current version of the page in question has been in existent for the past 10 years barring minor edits. The banner started editing the page and removing large amounts of contents two weeks ago. I have tried to discuss this with him on the Talk page of Loyola Jesuit College but he is not answering a key question necessary to move the discussion forward. Another administrator stated that the content that was included is not a violation of Wikipedia's policy. The content has been cited and is verifiable. It is not different from those of other similar institutions. Please read the edits and read our discussion on the talk section. I know The banner has been on wikipedia for a longer time, but should that take precedence over the content of the page? What would that say about wikipedia, that older editor's edits/distruptions take precedence over newer members even though the edits are not justifiable? Please read our discussion. Another administrator has agreed that the content that I reverted to (The original content of the page) is verifiable and objective (Please see my talk page) but The Banner insists on reverting to his edits. Please be fair in this judgment.Hypernerd387 (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. —— SerialNumber  54129  14:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hypernerd387, it seems you have broken the WP:3RR rule by making four reverts on 26 February. There may still be time for you to respond at the noticeboard and promise to make no further edits unless prior consensus in your favor has been found on the talk page. Otherwise, a block for edit warring appears likely. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I won't make any further edits Hypernerd387 (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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:.

I'm not sure we can trust you not to make any more edits, as you have been systematically reverting other editors for some time, so I'm afraid a block is necessary at this point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  23:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Quite unfair being that there were 2 of us involved in edit warring but only one got blocked.
 * You reverted edits of three different editors ... The Banner  talk 22:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)