User talk:Firstinline2009
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] June 2008
You have been blocked for using a sockpuppet to evade a block. Your edits are the exact same as those made by IP user outlined in User talk:216.80.147.214. In case you are unaware, creating accounts or using different IP addresses to evade a block is a violation of wikipedia policy and can result in increased sanctions. I have rolled back your contributions to the article Harvard Extension School. This should be viewed in no was as a personal endorsement of the previous version of the article and you are free to edit again after your block has expired provided you avoid edit warring. I should point out though, that you should begin using the dispute resolution process and the talk page to discuss your issues with the article rather than attempting to use brute force to do so - which as you can already see is not going to accomplish anything for you except longer blocks. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Trusilver 02:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand this. I have ample justification for editing the page. I explained it all in the talk page. It was full of misconceptions and the citations were taken out of context in order to drum up a false picture of the school. How was it not evident to you and other administrators that past users were trying to demean the school in such a blatant fashion? The past users do not understand the admissions process or the difference between fully admitted degree candidates and students attending courses for personal enrichment.
-
- As I mentioned, I am in no way taking a position on the state of the Harvard Extension School article, nor the contents within. You were not blocked for your opinion, you were blocked for how you expressed it. Edit warring is not acceptable on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not an anarchy. There are ways to handle your disputes, the first is to try talking them over, if that does not work then there are other steps that I will be happy to help you out with later on down the road. But one very important misconception that I want to address now is this - no matter how justified you feel you are in your changes, breaking the rules to make them is not acceptable. Trusilver 02:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- But then how do you explain the new edits and additions that were made to the article? There was no discussion that I read of on the talk page. The page was also full of horrible grammar. Not that mine is pristine, but it seemed like the other users were total strangers to the English language. Look, whenever blatant trolling was added to the page, it was always removed by someone without a fuss. Now, it just seems like there are a couple of users that are bent on keeping these new additions on the page and are guarding it 24-7. These new additions are falsehoods and the users are hiding behind sources they're taking out of context. What is the legal route to take? What can I do that wouldn't cause me to be banned for 3o something hours?
-
-
-
-
- There is no easy way to answer this and I certainly empathize with you, seeing that I went through much the same thing when I first started editing on Wikipedia a couple years back. I happen to go by a 1RR policy, which is to say that if anyone objects to a change that I have made, I immediate go into diplomacy mode and start trying to find a common ground rather than use up all my energy reverting changes that are just going to get reverted back. If after a few days you make no progress on the talk page, I will help you out with moving into the next step of dispute resolution. In the meantime I am going to unblock you provided that you spend the rest of the 30 hours of your block in the discussion of your position on the talk page rather than editing the article. Trusilver 02:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
Thank You. I appreciate the help. How can you further assist me in dispelling some of the negative misconceptions on the article? I have all of the proof you need to dispute their assertions. The way I had it before seemed like a resolution to me. I mean if the other users want to point out the fact that certain extension students have been caught posing as College Students, that's fine. But they're only giving half the story and are using their sources to denounce the school entirely. I do not believe that there has ever been a recorded instance of an admitted degree candidate posing as a College student, considering that all matriculated students are full members of the Harvard Community and have access to nearly everything the College or the GSAS students have access to. Secondly, the Student Life section is blatantly trying to insinuate that the degree candidates are illegitimate students by putting quotation marks around the words degree candidate and trial. The description of the Grossman Library as being a 3000 square foot room that used to be a dorm seems unnecessary. Why not just call it the Grossman Library? The article just needs a lot of work and I am surprised that all of the bad grammar and conjecture was allowed by the administrators?
Now the Harvard Extenson site is semi-protected and gauarded by obvious trolls who are bent on demeaning the school. It is unfair that there have been several edits since I was blocked, yet all of my edits were immediately deemed as acts of vandalism. The misconceptions in the new sections are evident to any Extension student and it is obvious that it was written by someone who does not attend the school. Why is Wikipedia defending these new edits and denying anyone else of editing the page for the benefit of the article?
