User talk:Tigerwiki2

Edits to NIU
I'm not sure if you're a new Wikipedian or merely a veteran who hopes that feigning novice status by using a new name will allow you to escape responsibility for your actions, but it doesn't matter. You and I do not agree on how NIU should read. I have taken the good-faith step of explaining my reasons for my edits at Talk:Northern Illinois University, and in my edit summary have invited you to join in the discussion. If you wish to change the article, you must work on obtaining consensus for such changes. You do it by discussion, not be forcibly imposing changes to the article.HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am trying to discuss this matter openly and civilly with you, but you ignore all my attempts and continue to attempt to impose your will on the article without explanation or discussion. Is this a game for you?  Are you trying to figure out how long you can do this without getting blocked? HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Formal warning
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively. Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:09, 30 October 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.

Do not delete other's talk page comments
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, you may be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll agree here, don't delete the comments of other editors. If you want an admin's opinion, go direct to an admin's talk page and ask them. If you ask for other opinions on a wiki-page, you can't delete comments just because you don't like those opinions. Dayewalker (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In Tigerwiki's defense, it seems clear that he/she was unclear about the process. (This edit makes the frustration quite palpable.) The fact is, Wikipedia reporting pages are complex and confusing; I have been editing for several years now and do not really know my way around them. (That's part of the reason I do so much discussion on talk pages--I don't know where else to go!) HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Result of your 3RR complaint
Please see WP:AN3 which contains a warning for you. Further reverts of this article by either party may lead to blocks, unless you first obtain a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page Comments
I saw your comments on EdJohnston's page here, where you ask for another editor to be blocked. I'll repeat what I said on your talk page, if you want change on that article, your first step would be to go to the article's talk page and join in the discussion there. Consensus to change the article won't happen anywhere else. Dayewalker (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Northern Illinois University
Pls come to Talk:Northern Illinois University I dont want to see you blocked because of a simply ranking issue.Moxy (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  22:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 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 edit warring, as you did at Northern Illinois University. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. 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. WilliamH (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Despite previous warnings, you have ignored every courteous invitation from more than one party to discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page. This is unacceptable. When this block expires, discuss with other editors and establish a level of mutual agreement to include your changes. Failure to do so will most likely mean a longer block. WilliamH (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply to concerns expressed by Tigerwiki2
I am posting this both to User talk:Tigerwiki2 and here; the former because I want to make sure Tigerwiki has a chance to read it, and the latter in the hope that we can kickstart a dialogue. I am going to post statements that Tigerwiki made to User talk:EdJohnston and elsewhere. If someone contests the accuracy of what I am posting, and insists on me leaving diffs, I will do so, but otherwise, I just plan to copy and paste his statements here and make my reply after them.
 * The Forbes "rankings" are not academic rankings (as I've stated in previous entries regarding this case, they are "value rankings" that take into account cost of total attendance at the schools and have no direct correlation to the value of education provided by the school) and should be stricken
 * Why have you not made this point on the article talk page? If what you say is true, it is something important to bring to the discussion—the discussion to which I have repeatedly invited you, invitations which you have repeatedly refused to even acknowledge. Well, regardless of whether or not you choose to engage in discussions, I will investigate this and consider this.  I realize that the fact of your incivility does not preclude the possibility that you are right.


 * If the user feels so strongly about the Forbes listings that he feels the need to include them here . . . 
 * But I don't feel strongly that the Forbes rankings should be included. I'm not the one who put them in there in the NIU article in the first place!  I didn't revert your removal of the Forbes rankings because I "felt strongly" about them, I did it because it was sourced information that you removed without explanation.  My God, Tigerwiki, we can't read your mind.  If you want something removed, let the rest of us know why.  You removed that and some other stuff in what looked like raw academic boosterism, which is not allowed.


 * Again regarding the Forbes rankings: why has he not included these Forbes listing in the other University pages that he contributes to, namely ISU and U of I?
 * A fair question with a very simple answer. Editing NIU (and Illinois) are my passions; ISU and U of I are both edited by me as well, but they aren't as important to me (that's why I have more edits to NIU as those two put together). Until you mentioned that, I didn't know the Forbes rankings were missing from the other two (and even now, I'm just taking your word for it), but frankly, I don't care.  I don't care about the Forbes rankings.  I also edit SIUC and UIC quite often.  I couldn't tell you if the Forbes rankings are in those articles, either.  It's just not my thing.


 * User HuskyHuskie has user Moxy to edit war with him.
 * Simply preposterous. I'd never even heard of User:Moxy until he/she commented on the talk pages regarding this conflict between TigerWiki2 and I.


 * Undue Weight - i.e. "NIU is ranked as a National University by the U.S. News & World Report, where it typically places in the fourth quartile".'' This entire sentence should be deleted and the section should begin at the next sentence with "In the most recent..."
 * Now this is another point you bring up that merits discussion. (For the life of me, I don't understand why you've never stated any of this on the article talk page.) Here's my brief explanation of my position (but my position is not carved in granite--I can certainly see two sides of this): I have been waiting decades for us to rise out of the bottom quartile.  That we have done so--finally--this year is great, but it may simply be an outlier.  The historical trend has been quite consistent:  We have been in the bottom fourth.  That's just a fact, and what makes the USNWR rankings so much more valuable than most of the others is that they show where a given school stands over time.  To ignore our history and just brag on this year strikes me as disingenuous and biased.  But again, I understand there are other perspectives, and I invite you to calmly discuss your viewpoint with other editors on the article's talk page.


 * I doubt that this person has real ties to NIU and I believe that their user name/handle is an over-the-top attempt to mask that they are actually from Central Illinois and have ties to U of I, ISU, and the central Illinois area. The connection to Central Illinois and things in that area is clear when looking at the articles they have created as well as the pages they contribute to.
 * Tigerwiki, most editors at Wikipedia do not just contribute to one or two articles. Have I contributed to articles dealing with Central Illinois?  Sure.  But I think (I say "think", because I don't track such things) that I have contributed more to articles from Northern Illinois.  Look, I grew up in and was educated in Northern Illinois.  But some of us actually move out of our parents' houses after graduation.  Have you ever considered:
 * how much less seriously one is taken if their post-graduate degrees are from the same university as their bachelor's?
 * that moving further downstate (or out of state, for that matter) might be necessary to accept a job?
 * that one might actually marry someone from another university?
 * Does living for a few years in Skokie or buying a house in Peoria Heights mean that one can no longer edit articles that herald back to more youthful years? Does marrying someone who went to ISU mean that they can no longer edit NIU?  Of course not.  But what it does mean is that one learns more about these other places and things, and yes, then one can write about those as well.
 * And contrary to what you apparently believe, you should know that editors with single purpose accounts are sometimes viewed less favorably than those who maintain "expertise" on only one or two articles. While we all have areas of interest, we grow as Wikipedia editors when we expand our horizons.

I truly hope, Tigerwiki, that you overcome these issues and become a productive editor. I think the first step for you should be to read WP:AGF. When you're finished with that, I hope you'll join us in making this a better encyclopedia. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)