Agesworthuser

Amherst

Please don't lecture without checking the citation. Go here, look up Amherst, and look at where it classifies Amherst as "more" selective. The phrase "most selective" is not used. Additionally, given that the college is currently not ranked the top, it is clearly more accurate and fair to refer to it as frequently ranked "among" the top. Frankly, that probably shouldn't even be in there, it's needless boosterism, but I think it's at least accurate. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I am fine if you want to use the Carnegie term instead of USNews. I don't care, frankly. You just have to be sure to use the phrase "more selective" if you use Carnegie, because they do not use the phrase "most selective." USNews does. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Saw your apology in your last edit summary -- obviously accepted, no offense was taken or anything. Your intentions were good, and I too was a bit surprised to see that Carnegie is running "more selective." I shared your misremembering on that! :) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ginsengbomb, thank you the acceptance. I have learnt to verify the facts before I make an accusation. Thanks for trying to improve the accuracy of the Amherst page! Agesworthuser (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Agesworthuser

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ElKevbo (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Agesworthuser, Just a quick note about a convention you may not have picked up on yet, in general the WP:Civility#Removing_uncivil_comments policy suggests that when you're in a heated discussion on a talk page, though it's good to calm things down and make your own positions clearer, it's generally not a good idea to go back and edit your own posts, particularly after someone else has already replied. If you want to make a change, try to note so clearly by using a strikethrough, or better yet just add a new response calmly explaining your new position. Going back and changing your comments after the fact can actually inflame tensions (if it appears like you're trying to make yourself look better or the other party worse) and often won't be noticed by others who could benefit from it. Thanks, Npdoty (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I would appreciate if you would restore your older comments, even if you'd like to strike through them.

If you're going to withdraw comments or change your mind about something, you should probably just say so. I understand the desire to want to edit one's own remarks but you just shouldn't do so in this kind of environment where a history is maintained and people are replying to what is written, not what is meant or what will be edited into the statement later. ElKevbo (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just checked. Agesworthuser has not changed much of what he has originally written, but has only essentially added to his comments. So I see no wrong for someone to try to better their statements, or simply to improve or correct the grammarProofallgames (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not accusing Agesworthuser of any horrible crime, just letting him know about a piece of etiquette that could help, particularly in heated discussions. Adding "let's not get too personal here" to an old comment after another editor has already responded to it may be interpreted as trying to make yourself look better after the fact: better instead to add new text as a new comment, that way the other editor will actually see it and be able to read and respond to it. In general, this rule of thumb really aids in civil discussion. (Simple editing for spelling and grammar is of course not a problem.) Thanks, Npdoty (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Email

Thanks for your email. I've not had time to read it properly, but I have just left a message with ElKevbo (talk · contribs) asking them to be careful with sockpuppet allegations. I'm going to be rather busy for the next few days, but I'll come back to your email early next week if you feel it still needs further consideration. Cheers, GedUK  12:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you see what happened GedUK, for my persistence with helping the Amherst article? Now, I am blocked. I hope you can help look into this matter urgently, Thanks.

Blocked: Abusing multiple accounts

As per the findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agesworthuser, I have concluded by linking your account to the other in several ways. Your story simply did not stand up to the evidence against you. As such, I have blocked you for two weeks for abusing multiple accounts. The other account has been blocked indefinitely. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the truth that I speak, and my past histories show that I have more than good intentions to improve that article. Can't I just work on one article before moving on?