User talk:Viva2015

March 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. 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. 2602:302:D89:83E9:DCF:FD75:97E9:3302 (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * None of what's been added in the last week is specifically sourced to a WP:RELIABLE reference, and much of it reads as promotional--Wikipedia is not a directory for folks looking for accommodations and interested in the number of coffeemakers in each room, etc. As such, the content may be removed at any time by another user. Thanks, 2602:302:D89:83E9:DCF:FD75:97E9:3302 (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's like you haven't read the above. Wikipedia guidelines re: WP:SPA, WP:COI and WP:OWNERSHIP may apply here. I will request further assistance, as opposed to just removing everything you've added. 2602:302:D89:83E9:DCF:FD75:97E9:3302 (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Aww... you scared her off.  People don't instantly understand everything, you know, so telling them they haven't read it isn't very nice, or helpful.  The last three acronyms you cited may not even apply and are rather harsh; your first comments were quite sufficient.  I hope you stick around, Viva -- you seemed to be making a good start and getting the hang of things.  ekips39 (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ekips, I disagree. Though guilty of some harshness, I wrote that (I am 2602) after noting a series of edits that merely continued down the same path, with no acknowledgement of the concerns listed above. I think COI was very likely, and there, too, an open acknowledgement would have been welcome. Finally, I think it's misleading to characterize the edits as a good start--they were primarily promotional in intent, and were insufficiently sourced. By all means new editors ought to be encouraged, but not if their purpose is to advertise. By the way, how did you ascertain the user's gender? 32.216.152.62 (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Viva2015 (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)"... they were primarily promotional in intent". No they were not. I am a former student of the University and have no commercial connection. I wrote the content with the aim of informing prospective students - I remembered how difficult it was to locate information on accommodation. "Wikipedia is not a directory for folks looking for accommodations and interested in the number of coffeemakers in each room, etc.". Aside from finding this sentence incredible patronising, I think it's laughable how seriously you take yourself. "It's like you haven't read the above". My favourite part - I did read what you had put, but I apologise for not hurridly reviewing all content within the six hour period between your messages. Maybe you could understand the concept of people doing other things with their life, than sitting criticising other people's good intentions on Wikipedia. Get a life - weirdo.Viva2015 (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, 'weirdo' is far more injurious than what I posted--the length of your explanation above is more pointed and personal than anything I wrote. This editor doesn't take him/herself personally, but does take the encyclopedia's guidelines to heart...when I'm not teaching, writing, and practicing my primary career. For the record, you did commandeer the article, erasing what was there in favor of a week's worth and perhaps 70 edits of content that wasn't going to stay; I seem not to be the only one with free time. I confess I don't know a gentle way of telling an editor that their body of work will be deleted, and am conscious of the disservice a community may do by allowing a new editor to dig that sort of hole. I do appreciate your explanation of intent, and apologize for mistaken assumptions. 32.216.152.62 (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In view of the identical editing doing the same advertising / promotion of student accomodation, by the new editor registered today IE:- Vista15, as you. I suspect you are the same person, which is Sockpuppetry. If you continue editing like this you may find you editing access blocked. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * INote that a checkuser has both confirmed and blocked your sockpuppet, plus found and blocked another IE:- SheffieldSorby. Richard Harvey (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)