User talk:WayGoneOr

Welcome

---

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent edits do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so on Wikipedia:Sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Policy on neutral point of view
• Guideline on external links
• Guideline on conflict of interest

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! King of the Arverni (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Boston College, you will be blocked from editing. Please not that your edits 1) corrupt links found in references, 2) sandwich text between images, 3) remove references and referenced content, 4) duplicate previously used references, 5) add redundant information, 6) pipe disambiguation links, 7) utilises improper references, and 8) removes required content. These actions violate WP:MOS, WP:DAB, WP:UNIGUIDE, and WP:V. Another revert on your part may also constitute vandalism per WP:VANDAL. If you disagree, please lodge your complaint at Talk:Boston College. King of the Arverni (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: [1]

Hi, there. Thank you for going to a third party. Your account is new and I wouldn't expect you to understand all guidelines (unless, of course, you've been editing the BC article as another user), but I would hope that you read what I've provided and not take reverts personally. There is a bigger difference than you realise between your reverts and mind. Since you appear not to have read the guidelines I've cited for you, I'll deal with each of the issues I alluded to above, but first let me say that:

• I reverted your edits for a variety of reasons, and was alerted to them because of the tags found at the revision history for Boston College. One is "(Tag: references removed)" and the other is "(Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)". I merely determined that there were indeed problems involved with these edits.
• Despite your claims to the contrary, it is clear from each edit summary that I did provide explanations for every single revert. If you found them inadequate, you should've asked me instead of reverting back.
• This edit called my edits vandalism. Per WP:VANDAL, it is not vandalism to undo disruptive edits.

Now, as for the guideline violations (which I've already mentioned but will address more in-depth for posterity's sake as well yours):

• This edit corrupted a citation and sandwiched text between two images, the latter of which violates MOS:IMAGES. Reverting that edit was not vandalism in any way, shape, or form.
• This edit involved several issues --

• You made the hatnote to read "nearby", which is irrelevant. There is no need to introduce the proximity to disambiguation when the disambiguation refers to the naming, not the location, of the institution, especially when the disambiguation page does not concern the location with respect to the institution.
• You removed the research university comment, which was cited, and the Jesuit comment, which is found in other reliable sources throughout the article, as well as the infobox. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article body, and removing helpful and cited content is vandalism, if anything is. I didn't need to call it vandalism, but I used stock templates.
• You changed the location from Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts to use only the state name. This is not standard or helpful, per WP:UNIGUIDE. It's certainly not helpful to simply refer to Boston as "the capital city".
• BC is not "the first institution of higher education established in Boston" per Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. That claim has no source, of which I'm aware, to back it up, and you didn't meet the burden of proof anyway.
• The "source" you added used the term "The University Press", which is not a real press name as far as my research shows and therefore does not meet WP:RS.
• The edit summary read "cleanup" despite the fact that it was not cleanup per WP:UNIGUIDE, WP:MOS, WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, or any other Wikipedia guideline.

• This edit added a piped link to a disambiguation template, which is to be avoided per WP:DAB.

I hope this helps. Don't take it personally, since neither of us owns the article. --King of the Arverni (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)