User talk:Jacksantr

Please stop deleting referenced information. This is not a legitimate act in Wikipedia.

The above unsigned edit was made by: 66.240.35.66

What? Who are you to give me this warning? That the material is referenced does not mean it should belong there! Everyone editing the article agreed with me on this issue: You are just attacking the university with language such as "The university does NOT rank in top XX in such and such area, instead of saying what actually the university's rank is. On Wikipedia, you should give information about what the university IS, instead of what it is NOT. And I am not deleting your post; I am simply undoing it to a previous version which is more representative, and which talks about what the university actually is. That a university does not rank among the top engineering programs according to an online ranking system that ranks universities based on their web presence does not matter: Look at the rankings of top universities of the world; which one has a statement saying "The university's engineering dept. does not rank among the top according to such and such unknown web rankings." Such language is inappropriate. And even if it WAS appropriate, let's assume, then, it would rather belong under the "engineering" dept. of the given university.

Please YOU stop vandalizing the article with your statements that are clearly not written with good faith. Lastly, don't make it look like only your version is referenced material; the other, more professional version, is also referenced, and is referenced to an actual governmental website, unlike yours. Jacksantr (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Also, not sure if you are the same person who keeps changing that article, but if you are not, just because some random person who is himself vandalizing the article complained about one who is fixing his acts does not mean that you should be accusing that person of vandalism. Jacksantr (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The above text is meaningless. Reading the text you keep deleting would be useful. If it does not work, taking English lessons for at least 1.5 years could help. Also, words written using uppercase letters represent violence, which is suitable for a vandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.35.66 (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Who are you, a professor of English? A professor of English who has multiple grammar errors in just two sentences? A professor of English who doesn't know how to write academically in an encyclopedia, but instructs others to do so? On the other hand, I AM a professor at a research university in the USA. Your language is not only inappropriate, but also does not suit the language of an encyclopedia. And no, uppercase is used for reasons of emphasis; it is only when all letters used in a sentence are in uppercase can a statement be considered as an indication of anger. Even so, that is not called "violence," as you put it, sir; it is, rather, "anger:" I suggest that you educate yourself, before instructing others to do so. And what is your beef with Bogazici University anyway? Why add a bunch of useless "website popularity rankings" and pretend they are actually academic university rankings? Jacksantr (talk) 03:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to let you know that you have committed harassment against me. Nevertheless, I will not get indulged in such a violent fight. Please read the text and learn what an academic ranking is. Lack of success of a university is not your personal issue. Please stay calm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.35.66 (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting to see your definitions of "harassment" and "violence." You are coming to my own page, telling me that I should learn English, and then, when I point out your grammar errors, you are complaining that it is "harassment" and "violence." I am not a person who likes to talk about people's grammar errors, or how messed up their semantics is; that is completely normal to me, but if one is accusing me of having poor English, then, he or she deserves being told about his own problems with English. Also, notice that arguments like yours, which are based on the other person's English or such claims as "harassment" and "violence," in the absence of these acts being committed, are usually made by those who "lose" an argument, and have nothing better to say. Jacksantr (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Now, I understand why you are so willing to forget about what class Bogazici University belongs to. Let me remind you: your alma mater has not even been ranked by Times-QS until 2010! Ignored, you see? Lost... Are we talking about English grammar with a third class Turkish university graduate? Give me a break... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.35.66 (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware that there is no ranking called "OSS". (184.75.35.50 (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC))

As mentioned before, there is no such ranking called 'OSS Rankings'. (140.247.214.36 (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC))

September 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Boğaziçi University. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear King of Hearts,

Thank you for letting me know about the three reversions rule. I believe I haven't violated it, for I am not editing that article as often as the other person does, but I will be more careful in the future. In any case, for the second part of your comment, this has already been widely discussed in the discussion page of the article. It is not I who is doing anything wrong here; it is rather the other person who does his edits clearly with no good faith. And the community in the discussion page of the article is in agreement with me on this issue, not the other person. Please send a meta editor something to take a look at this issue.

And thanks a lot for letting me know about the alternative ways of dealing with the situation.

Best, Jacksantr (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)