User talk:FirstPrezzzz1776

Hello! I saw you reverted my edit on University of California, Hastings College of the Law, which concerned placement of the image taken from the roof. Please see The manual of style on the placement of images. Generally speaking, images should be on the right. One should avoid sandwiching the text between two images, or between an image and an infobox, as is the current situation on that article. Please also revisit your helpdesk post to see my response there to your earlier concerns. At this point, you need to read the policy pages which you have been referred to both here and on Commons. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 05:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?! At Least 3 other images are the same and in the text. It doesn't make sense placed below as you had it. Why do you keep blocking and ruining this? Do you have some type of power trip?

I have not blocked or ruined anything you have done. I also have not changed it back after you reverted me. We are currently on the "discuss" phase of the bold, revert, discuss cycle which is the hallmark of Wikipedia editing. There is one image in the article that is on the left, the one of Serranus Clinton Hastings, not "at least 3" as you say. However, the text isn't sandwiched by that one the way it is by the other one. Have you reviewed the link I provided to the manual of style? Also, when you leave a comment on a talk page, please sign your comment using four tildes (These things: ~). The software will then generate a standardized signature and timestamp. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 06:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 in the text, there were two on the left, neither I had added (only edited) before the Commons stupidly deleted them. The images I had are literally uploaded by me on Google Images. They belong to the school and were given to me. This page was completely outdated, had inaccuracies and plain wrong before I spent 8-10 hours today editting. I don't appreciate people blocking me when I know first hand this information and have sourced it correctly. FirstPrezzzz1776 (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry this is frustrating for you. I am trying to help you by pointing out policies and guidelines Wikipedia has, which it is important that you follow if you don't appreciate people blocking you. I assume you created FcktheWikiGods to get around the block on Commons. Please read our policy on sockpuppetry, which is essentially the same for Commons as for here. That other account has been blocked (not by me) for violations of the username policy. Please try to understand and follow policies. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ONUnicorn can you help with the 41st citation on UC Hastings page I am getting an error and don't know why. Thank you. FirstPrezzzz1776 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it with this edit. The problem was that you didn't put the title of the pdf in the reference. The {{cite web}} template has several parameters, and some are required while others are not. Title is required for all citation templates. Generally speaking, the more information you provide in references, the better. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:ONUnicorn , User:Rdp060707 , User:TjBison and User:ElKevbo How is it inappropriate to add new information about new building construction, and newly published US News and World Report rankings regarding new concentrations/majors? Also, how is it inappropriate to add historical information about Alumni and (well known) traditional school history? That's exactly the point of Wikipedia to either inform on historical contexts and update using open sourced so new information can be added or inaccurate information corrected. But you decided (in dictator fashion) to simply remove facts that are important to the visitors of the page to understand the school. This was inappropriate and goes against the core mission of Wikipedia. I don't take to kindly to your actions and feel singled out for simply trying to contribute. As stated before I am not affiliated or work for the University. I may have misquoted myself in previous communications if that is where the confusion lies. I only have friends and family who attended this University and wanted to take it upon myself to make sure it was being accurately depicted online. Please put back the factual edits and pictures (I personally photographed while visiting the school) that I took valuable time to update. FirstPrezzzz1776 (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have attached Sources to backup my content: New Alumni Updates, New Construction Updates, factual information about the Alumni Network and Programs available, specific alumni, and more evidence from USNWR to support the above statements. FirstPrezzzz1776 (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not inappropriate to add new information about building construction and US News and World Report rankings, and I did not remove or change the US News and World Report rankings. The material I removed was in the lead section of the article. Please read that link to see the guidelines for what the lead of an article should contain. Basically, most of that material was only in the lead section, and was not elaborated on later in the body of the article. The lead should summarize information in the article's body. Moreover, much of the material I removed was promotional sounding. "The law school has an extensive alumni network..." sounds like an advert for the school, a list of reasons why one should decide to attend the school. "UC Hastings has successful programs in . . . and well known programs in . . ." again sounds like the school's promotional and marketing materials. "Come to this school, we have lots of high value connections and programs for you!" Also, university articles on Wikipedia should not contain extensive lists of courses or programs, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The information about the new building is probably relevant and should be included in the location section, especially if reliable sources which are independent from the university (in other words, not the university website and publicity materials) have covered it.

I'm quite concerned about that your editing behavior is going to get you in trouble. You are reverting anyone who tries to edit your additions to the article to make them conform with Wikipedia policy and style guidelines. You are exhibiting an attitude of "ownership" over that article. Your actions are beginning to look like you are willing to edit war. You have made no edits to the article talk page, which is the appropriate place to have conversations about content. You do not appear to be willing to engage in consensus building with other editors. I realize Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, and many policies and guidelines which are not easy for newcomers to find, which is why I'm trying to point you to some of them. Please take this information on board. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should have mentioned that external links should not be in the body of the article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FirstPrezzzz1776, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi FirstPrezzzz1776! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Connection with University of California, Hastings College of the Law?[edit]

What is the nature of your connection with the University of California, Hastings College of the Law? ElKevbo (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UC Hastings page User:ElKevbo How is it inappropriate to add new information about new building construction, and newly published US News and World Report rankings regarding new concentrations/majors? Also, how is it inappropriate to add historical information about Alumni and (well known) traditional school history? That's exactly the point of Wikipedia to either inform on historical contexts and update using open sourced so new information can be added or inaccurate information corrected. But you decided (in dictator fashion) to simply remove facts that are important to the visitors of the page to understand the school. This was inappropriate and goes against the core mission of Wikipedia. I don't take to kindly to your actions and feel singled out for simply trying to contribute. As stated before I am not affiliated or work for the University. I may have misquoted myself in previous communications if that is where the confusion lies. I only have friends and family who attended this University and I wanted to take it upon myself to independently make sure it was being accurately depicted online. Please put back the factual edits and pictures (I personally photographed while visiting the school) that I took valuable time to update. FirstPrezzzz1776 (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC) I have attached Sources to backup my content: New Alumni Updates, New Construction Updates, factual information about the Alumni Network and Programs available, specific alumni, and more evidence from USNWR to support the above statements.FirstPrezzzz1776 (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UC Hastings revisions reason unprovided.[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you previously undid my new revisions of the schools logos without reasons or explainations. If you you're unfamiliar with school articles pages guidelines, please read WP:UNIGUIDE.

Also looking at your contributions almost all of it is just about UC Hastings. I'm under speculation that you are affiliated with the institution -- WP:COI. TjBison (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UC Hastings page Why have you taken it upon yourself to delete accurate information? None of the information I posted was inaccurate or promotionary. I am not affiliated/work for the University. Please put back the factual edits I took time to update. FirstPrezzzz1776 (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:TjBison How is it inappropriate to add new information about new building construction, and newly published US News and World Report rankings regarding new concentrations/majors? Also, how is it inappropriate to add historical information about Alumni and (well known) traditional school history? That's exactly the point of Wikipedia to either inform on historical contexts and update using open sourced so new information can be added or inaccurate information corrected. But you decided (in dictator fashion) to simply remove facts that are important to the visitors of the page to understand the school. This was inappropriate and goes against the core mission of Wikipedia. I don't take to kindly to your actions and feel singled out for simply trying to contribute. As stated before I am not affiliated or work for the University. I may have misquoted myself in previous communications if that is where the confusion lies. I only have friends and family who attended this University and I wanted to independently take it upon myself to make sure it was being accurately depicted online. Please put back the factual edits and pictures (I personally photographed while visiting the school) that I took valuable time to update. FirstPrezzzz1776 (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have attached Sources to backup my content: New Alumni Updates, New Construction Updates, factual information about the Alumni Network and Programs available, specific alumni, and more evidence from USNWR to support the above statements.FirstPrezzzz1776 (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Rdp060707. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to University of California, Hastings College of the Law because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. ----Rdp060707|Let's discuss about the plans 06:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rdp060707 How is it inappropriate to add new information about new building construction, and newly published US News and World Report rankings regarding new concentrations/majors? Also, how is it inappropriate to add historical information about Alumni and (well known) traditional school history? That's exactly the point of Wikipedia to either inform on historical contexts and update using open sourced so new information can be added or inaccurate information corrected. But you decided (in dictator fashion) to simply remove facts that are important to the visitors of the page to understand the school. This was inappropriate and goes against the core mission of Wikipedia. I don't take to kindly to your actions and feel singled out for simply trying to contribute. As stated before I am not affiliated or work for the University. I may have misquoted myself in previous communications if that is where the confusion lies. I only have friends and family who attended this University and I wanted to independently take it upon myself to make sure it was being accurately depicted online. Please put back the factual edits and pictures (I personally photographed while visiting the school) that I took valuable time to update. FirstPrezzzz1776 (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have attached Sources to backup my content: New Alumni Updates, New Construction Updates, factual information about the Alumni Network and Programs available, specific alumni, and more evidence from USNWR to support the above statements.FirstPrezzzz1776 (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your kidding me right? You’re not collaborating you just deleting my edits. Your one of the post hypocritical posters I’ve seen. Go take a hard look in the mirror. FirstPrezzzz1776 (talk) 07:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:ElKevbo. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. freshacconci (✉) 13:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks[edit]

Hi - from the messages above, I can't see that you have previously been warned about our policy on personal attacks, so here is a link to it: WP:NPA. Please read it carefully.

To be absolutely clear: this edit was an entirely unacceptable personal attack. You modified it in this edit, but it remains an entirely unacceptable person attack. Unfounded accusations of harassment, like this one and many others you have made, are also personal attacks. You have been warned at the ANI thread you started that your account will be indefinitely blocked if you persist with this; I'm giving you this note to ensure that you understand why that will happen. It has to stop, immediately.

If you don't understand why people are reverting your edits, ask them politely to explain what the problem is. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for harassment, including cross-project disruption — a m:global lock candidate.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 13:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]