User talk:Kupal123

February 2020
Hello, I'm Magnolia677. I noticed that you recently removed content from McGill University without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
Hello, I'm Jonahrapp. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, McGill University, but you didn't provide a properly-cited reliable source. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page.  And please read WP:WEASEL

In addition, I would like to inform you that the vandalism of Wikipedia articles should not be used as a means to argue with or make a mockery of another user. On the article, McGill University, I asked you to discuss your edits on my Talk page but you instead reverted mine and wrote the following hostile paragraph on the GA article: "Like any other university, McGill witnessed many important “firsts” during its formative years. These included the election of its first Principal in 1824, the establishment of its first academic unit and first faculty in 1829, the conferment of its first academic degree and Canada's first ever medical degree in 1833, affiliation with its first teaching hospital in 1834, the construction of its first ever permanent building in 1843, and the establishment of its first and oldest existing endowed chair in 1846, among others," which constitutes vandalism. Rather than resorting to edit warring with other users and vandalism, please discuss issues on users' Talk pages. Thanks! Jonahrapp (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at McGill University. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * I am not disrupting anything.  Jonahrapp has been deleting what I wrote in the Lead as important  "firsts" in McGill history because he wants ONLY his "first" to stay in the Lead.  There is no objective reason for him to delete my "firsts" while insisting that he keep his first. I just replied in his Discussion page.  Please refer to that.   And do not delete mine and keep his because that is biased editing.Kupal123 (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Edit warring is disruptive. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Your edit on "firsts" which I pasted above, clearly does not belong in the Lead of the article, McGill University and it is clear by the way you wrote it that you were aware of that. This article's lead should comprise a curated list of the most important parts of the article, and from the history section, perhaps one or two of the most important "firsts" like year founded and year the first degree was awarded, not a list of every possible first, with a very snide intro like "Like any other university, McGill witnessed many important "firsts"". In any case, it is good that we are discussing this here instead of on the article. Jonahrapp (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at McGill University
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. The proper way to handle this is to open a discussion on the article talk page and try to get others' opinions there. See WP:Dispute resolution for some of the steps you can take. But if you continue to revert the article to restore your own version, before you have persuaded the others, you are risking a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston: Why would the other editor, Jonahrapp, WHO STARTED THE EDIT WAR by deleting my edits not risk the block???  I did not delete his edits but simply restored my edits that he kept deleting without getting any consensus at all.  I opened a discussion on his Discussion page Jonahrapp, but  he did not reply but instead kept deleting my edits and keeping his. Kupal123 (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like you, Kupal123, have added your preferred material three times (starting at 10:16 on 12 March) and he has removed it twice. It is time for both of you to be discussing this. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct, but it was User:Jonahrapp who started removing mine when he could have kept it along with his edits. I kept urging him to keep both his and my edits to no avail.  Then he invited me to his Discussion page at User talk:Jonahrapp, but still kept deleting my edits while keeping his. Yes, it is time to talk.  Thanks  EdJohnston for your intervention and suggestions.Kupal123 (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, I could not have kept your edit along with my own, because they do not belong in the Lead. Your "contributions" are a risk to McGill University's GA status. You do not properly cite your sources, your punctuation is off, your edit is written with a snide attitude and it does not follow the guidelines of a Lead section. I have requested that the article be semi-protected. Do not say I reverted your edit "for no legitimate reason at all" when I have clearly stated here and on your talk page my reasoning. Magnolia677 even wrote that your edits have been unconstructive and disruptive, and stated that it would be removed, yet you continue to re-add it and revert my own corrections.Jonahrapp (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me make this clear Jonahrapp that your edit does not belong to the Lead. There is nothing in my edits that is not fully documented.  Cite even one, since everything there is with appropriate references.  Neither can you justify why your McGill "first" is better than my McGill "firsts."  It is all your opinion. And neither did that other editor you cited ever say that you were correct in adding in your edits or removing mine.  He just said  to stop editing.  Finally, as EdJohnston CLEARLY REMINDED YOU AND ME,  WE (meaning. YOU AND I) CAN BOTH BE BLOCKED IF WE BOTH KEEP DELETING EACH OTHER'S EDITS.  I hope that is clear to you.Kupal123 (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * If you would simply look at the guidelines for a Lead section (Manual of Style/Lead section, you would see how your edit is flawed. Please revert your own edit to the one I left, which is how the article has been for months. Not even my own devising. No need to get so angry.Jonahrapp (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, writing a URL alone ≠ a properly cited source. Enough. Jonahrapp (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have fully memorized the guidelines for a Lead section (Manual of Style/Lead section, and find that it is your edit that is totally flawed. Nowhere do the guidelines say that you should add the first degree awarded by a university in the Lead.   And nowhere does it say that other "firsts" in a university history are banned.  It is all your imagination.  URL have been used as references in many other WP articles, and it does not depart from the undeniable fact that it is a valid reference.   You are just nitpicking on trivial, presentation style.  There will be no more reverts and further edits at this time.  You saw the last editor warn you and me to desist from any further changes to the Lead unless you want to be blockedKupal123 (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * There should be an age restriction on edits to GA articles. Listing 8 seemingly random "firsts" and writing that the University, "like any other university," had many "firsts" certainly does not follow the guidelines for a Lead. Also, just because other WP articles use a URL with no author, date, accessdate, publisher etc. doesn't mean it is the correct way to cite sources on Wikipedia. McGill University is an important institution and should have a high quality article, so have some respect. I will no longer be responding to you and I am leaving this in the hands of several Wikipedia administrators. Jonahrapp (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, you Jonahrapp are imposing your personal biases and preferences.  There are no age restrictions, etc. precisely because WP is a dynamic and walking or "current" encyclopedia.  If you consider my 8 "firsts" as random, then all the more your one and only "first" is  more so random.   For what you consider random is again your own biased and subjective opinion,  just like your totally flawed and unsubstantiated reasoning for keeping your edit and deleting mine.  Finally, URLs have been used as references thousands of times over for so many university articles in WP that are way more prestigious than McGill.    And just because you do not like using URLs does not in any way imply that the references are invalid or in your own subjective words "improper."Kupal123 (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please consider striking out the charges of lying that you made here. Personal attacks are blockable. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)