User talk:99.236.215.170: Difference between revisions

First you edit-warred over an article, using as an excuse another article which contradicts you. Now you're edit-warring on my talk page after I told you to stay off. Stop or I'll have you blocked for being a pest. — kwami (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe since my definition was backed up with a source and you are removing things based on your own make believe knowledge of the world all over the place (including how linguists transcribe sound changes) that you are the one who initiated the edit war. After this, you edited my text to remove any argument I had. Please refrain from making threats, Wikipedia isn't about who you know, it's about what can be sourced. You, in my opinion, have lost sight of this. Please do not edit my talk page, as you have absolutely no argument to make towards me.

Please WP:Don't template the regulars, as you did at User talk:Kwamikagami. While discussing edit conflicts with other users can sometimes entail heated emotions, please keep in mind basic courtesy. Those templates are designed for dealing with new and drive-by editors who just plain do not know the conventions and behaviour guidelines that all long-term editors know and generally abide by. If you believe that a long-term editor is not following these guidelines, it is highly unlikely that that the editor does not know the guideline, and is highly likely that any violation is much more nuanced and subject to interpretation than any templated warning suggests. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is, the rules (aka initiating an edit war) do not apply to "regulars". Unfortunately, part of the process of reporting an edit war involves including a warning template. 99.236.215.170 (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, part of the process of reporting an edit war means informing all parties. You chose to do so with a template. This is bad manners with long-term editors. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that. You didn't even inform Kwami that you had reported it to 3RR, Bbb23 had to for you. You actually left a {{Uw-3rr}}. Bad form. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be so hostile just because I am new to the 'well established' system, which is extremely Kafkaesque and overly bureaucratic. On the 3RR page, there is nothing about the template rule you showed me, and I'm sorry but frankly I don't really have any interest in whether his talk page is aesthetically pleasing, though I will try to spare the feelings of the Old Guard from now on.

As regards your assertion that I didn't notify him of the report, indeed I did. I noticed that I had to give notice shortly after I submitted the complaint, and so I placed the template on his page. I'm not sure what your interest in me is, but you are coming across as very rude. Remember, most of my edits until now have been very minor things, and I haven't been involved in any of this sort of disagreement before. It seems being bold is only for the established members from this experience.99.236.215.170 (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I share involvement in many content areas with Kwami - and I have had significant content disputes with him/her, no less - I am a WP:WikiJaguar. That's how I found out about you - I saw the offending post. But read my initial posting above again, and drop the defensiveness: I was telling you about a basic component of wikicourtesy, and it is completely unaccusatory and strictly informative. You chose to be flippant about it in response, and that is unacceptable.

And remember, I can see the content history of Kwami's talk page and what was contained in each contribution. In no way did you make the required notification about referring Kwami to the 3RR board, Bbb23 did. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 07:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor in question had a problem with the template being applied to his or her talk page, he or she could have mentioned it to me personally, rather than through a liaison, though I imagine you took it upon yourself to do this because of some sort of vicarious offence. Honestly, I didn't find the template that vulgar in appearance, but that's my personal opinion. Anyway, as I said before if you bothered reading what I wrote above, the 3RR page was unclear; I added the template, and I thought that was sufficient as there wasn't anything stating otherwise.

All that said, I appreciate your interest in me (despite my finding it somewhat odd, particularly the reference to yourself being a stalker). I don't know why you insist on hounding me about the issue, it's been more or less resolved. But, in regard to the rule I supposedly broke, I don't believe it's a rule that must be abided by, and as the user was warned for edit warring (as was I) it appears he or she wasn't aware of the rule, and perhaps the template served a good purpose. Maybe if you'd like, you could also refer the user in question to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary or indeed the Zero Revert policy adhered to by many.99.236.215.170 (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]