User talk:Vanderbilt8

Would be best to talk about things on the articles talk page. Pls be aware of WP:3RR dont want you blocked for a simply edit that you may have validation to remove. Just come to the talk page and state your points - lets see what others have to say.Moxy (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Intoronto1125
That would be Intoronto1125, not "Intoronto".

Anyways,

Hello, Vanderbilt8, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! Intoronto1125 (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from York University. When removing content, 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 content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. 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. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to York University, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (Shout!) 21:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove content as you did at York University; there is no good reason to split off the "controversies" section into a separate article. --Ckatz chat spy  05:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Nov. 2011
Hello. These changes you are making to the rankings section may well be good ones but go against the logic of long-standing practice on this page. Why is your edit better? On the other hand, stuff like redundancy, data-as-information and peacockism might sway you to treat the section as it is now. Let's talk it through. COYW (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

January 2012
If you think King City is "affluent", provide a reference (eg to StatsCan) that supports the adjective. Otherwise, your fellow editors won't let the adjective stick.  PK T (alk)  12:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)