Wontonkok

October 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lacey Chabert. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. RB 20:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And it was already in the article. I simply restored it. So that's not how it works. After a few hours I am restoring it, and if you remove it again before there is a consensus on the talk page, I assure you there will be a report about edit warring. Ward3001 (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User_talk: Not sure if I'm doing this right, reply if you see it

I just spent a couple hours reviewing the document history, and a couiple more reviewing the rules you helpfully linked. You are restoring something that has been deleted by 3 different users, and has been present only 4 days out of 53 since its creation. Every single time it was reposted, it was taken down almost immediately. Therefore you are the one pursuing an edit-war.

You were also correct in pointing me to the conflict resolution, thank you; I had no desire to create a disaster. However, you need to give it time to resolve. This page doesn't get visited or edited frequently enough to justify "a few hours" for RFCs to point the way. If it is relevant now, it will be relevant in 30 days, which is the normal timeframe for such things, near as I can tell by reading the rules you helped me find. Until that time, I will consider the entry to be spam. Wontonkok (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the bottom line: It was placed in the article with proper sourcing. It is not a violation of WP:BLP; it's just the preference of Wikipedia editors. It had been removed without an edit summary, which is when I restored it. It was in the article when you posted the RFC. It stays, pending outcome of the RFC. After I restore it as it was when the RFC began, please wait until a consensus emerges to remove it before doing so. This is my final suggestion that you avoid edit warring. Ward3001 (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but you are wrong. The second removal, on 9/25, stated why it was removed. The first time I removed it (third removal), I couldn't figure out how to leave a comment, or I would have. Each time thereafter, though, I have made a comment. And since you were so focused on having a war, I could not remove it and look up how to do the RFC (which I thought you were going to do) and get it posted before you'd restore it yet again. It has not been up long enough to consider it a status quo, so that's all I did, was restore the status quo. I will thank you again for correcting my newb errors, but that was most definitely not one of them.

So let the RFC do its work. Let people have the time they need to see what's happening and make their comments. Wontonkok (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed without edit summary here at 15:51, October 13, 2008. Restored by me here at 02:20, October 19, 2008. RFC posted here at 17:25, October 19, 2008. Between here (17:29, October 19, 2008) after the RFC was posted and here when you removed it, the statement was in the article. End of discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

3rr heads up

Please see my warning. --slakr^\ talk / 04:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Lacey Chabert. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lacey Chabert. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ward3001 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. I correct someone's vandalism, and I am accused of edit-warring.Wontonkok (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding unsourced information

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Lacey Chabert, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As you well know, I did not add the information, I restored what has been there for many years, since long before you were even a user here. Feel free to discuss removing things you know nothing about BEFORE you remove them on the discussion page. Wontonkok (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:VAND ...

... Let me suggest that you read it before throwing around the term every time you have a disagreement with someone. Ward3001 (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Just because you don't know the correct definition of a word doesn't mean it's not the right word. I may not be able to report your actions as vandalism under the guidelines, but I can certainly still report them.

If you would like to tell me how to add citations, or link up something that will explain it, so I could add them to what I add, or add them to the entries in question, please do so; I'm not interested in edit-warring, only in providing a quality article. Wontonkok (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Done almost half hour ago. Read Chabert's talk page, please. And there is nothing to "report". Ward3001 (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

I'm not sure why, but this link that you added to Lacey Chabert is a dead link. You might want to check the URL. Ward3001 (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I just copied the original link, but I'll see if I can figure out where the article went and correct it. Wontonkok (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Does that look better to you? Wontonkok (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. Ward3001 (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack, again

That's a pretty retarded reason to defy the RFC: I don't have a problem with your removing the statement. I did not restore the statement to defy the RFC. I restored it because the previous editor removed it but left a deceptive edit summary, a violation of Wikipedia policy, as I CLEARLY stated in my edit summary. Other editors have a right to know when something is removed by looking at the edit summary.

Now, as for your "retarded" comment:
Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Lacey Chabert. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't want your REASONS attacked, maybe you should have upheld the RFC. For someone so in love with bludgeoning people with rules, I find it incomprehensible that you repeatedly ignore them, and repeatedly fail to follow their dictates. I'm getting sick of your false accusations and your incredible lack of logic in regards to what you consider to be correct actions.

Go ahead and get sick. I'm following policies. I did not revert your latest removal of the statement in the article. I still find it revealing that you have exhibited no interest in editing any article other than Lacey Chabert, thus far making you a single purpose account. That's your right, but that right does not bestow ownership of the article on you. End of discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Your ability to make wild claims notwithstanding (I've made hundreds of edits over the past several years and never bothered to register or care about policies that didn't affect me until recently), there is nothing wrong with a user focusing on one article that person knows extensively, or who has it as their primary interest. I don't know why you insist on treating that like it's a heinous crime. And considering that you're the one acting like an owner, it's rather ridiculous that you would accuse me of it, when the only thing I have tried to do is prevent destruction and allow common consensus to take place.

"I've made hundreds of edits over the past several years": Yeah, and I'm the King of England. Ward3001 (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That WOULD explain the unearned sense of entitlement you display. And your repeated inability to cease discussion when you declare an end to one. And your distaste for peaceful resolution until someone else has to be brought into it. Wontonkok (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, we both were warned about edit warring, so the "someone else" you were desperately hoping would come down hard on me did not share your opinion that I'm the only one who stepped over the line. As for my ceasing a discussion when I declare an end to it, please forgive me. I forgot that you were appointed wikiboss over all of Wikipedia (no doubt over all of Wikimedia Foundation) by Jimbo. Hey, come to think of it, that explains why you can rewrite all the rules. Ward3001 (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Friendly message

Putting our differences aside (seriously), I'd hate to see you get into trouble for the way you deal with a vandal. Wikipedia's rules state that vandals, like any editor, should not be personally attacked. This edit probably will not cause you any problems, but if an admin saw it you might get a warning. Just a friendly message. Ward3001 (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. You're right, I should have held my tongue, but I was rather pissed. I've seen you undoing quite a bit of similar vandalism, so I'm just stymied by the sheer volume of it. Wontonkok (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)