User talk:Lilkunta/Archive3

Reverted Talk page changes

I noticed that you reverted some of the changes I made to Talk:Jim Bob Duggar. I would like to ask you to familiarize yourself with WP:TALK, the Talk page guidelines. I didnt revert the talk page. I added my comment back in bc I feel it needs to be on duggar disc page. It needs to be there bc n e 1 looking @ the history will see numerous "joie" edits. So that section on the disc page is the place to discuss y u feel the duggar page is owned by u.

The problems: 1) you interspersed your commentary within my comments (rather than placing them at the bottom) Wiki allos COLOUR. U should try it. Lilkunta 18:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

2) you addressed me personally in a talk page section header (not allowed) U were the 1 who wrote me to post on the disc page. NOw u dont like it. whatever.Lilkunta 18:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

3) the statement about "dominating the talk page" is not appropriate for an article Talk page. You are allowed to make personal comments to other editors but an article Talk page is not the place to do it. I moved that comment to my Talk page where it belongs. I feel it needs to be on duggar disc page. It needs to be there bc n e 1 looking @ the history will see numerous "joie" edits. So that section on the disc page is the place to discuss y u feel the duggar page is owned by u.Lilkunta 18:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

4) your tone is borderline as far as WP:NPA so I would cool it with the insults if I were you. & again u come with intimidating comments... U COOL IT! I am not attacking u. Did I insult u? No did not. I stated a fact: u do repeatedly revert to ur version of the page; & u do have numerous edits to the page. & again u cme with intimidating comments; U COOL IT! Stop changing/moving editing my comments.Lilkunta 18:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I have reinstated your new comment, the one that started with "Same thing 2 u."

Please abide by the rules and stop making a mess of the Talk page. I am perfectly willing to work with you if you will communicate civilly and appropriately. Joie de Vivre 18:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)U stop messing with the talk page. I have a mother thanks very much!Lilkunta 18:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

read attribution

Please read WP:Attribution. It will explain the difference between a verifiable source and an unverifiable source. I have tried to explain it many times. Bloggingbaby.com is UNVERIFIABLE and thus IT CANNOT BE USED AS A SOURCE. Joie de Vivre 19:00, 1 April 2007

(UTC) What specifically? Thats a long page.Lilkunta 19:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

3RR warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Jim Bob Duggar. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. 20:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC) Unsigned post by — Athænara ✉

What the h? Well u know what, pls tell this toJoie de Vivre as well. Surely u see that she is reverting repeatedly.Lilkunta 20:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC). [reply]

Mediation Cabal

You are currently listed as one of the parties in a dispute at the Mediation Cabal. I have offered to mediate this dispute. Please see the Case Page for the dispute to continue mediation. You may respond on the case page or on my talk page if you would prefer. I look forward to hearing your side of the issue--Ulysses411^Talk

I added info. But it isnt good enuf 4 Joie. Joie reverts saying I have errors. Her changes have errors. Joie tells me to add to her changes, y doesnt Joie add to my changes? Now she has diff ppl on my *ss tellin me all kinds of stuff. Lilkunta 06:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I have identified no less than 20 errors in grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, and factual accuracy in your version. Your seeming inability to detect such errors is not my problem, and readers should not just have to live with them.

Furthermore, I didn't "have ppl on [your] *ss". I had never met Athenara before she spoke against you. They showed up of their own accord, probably because of your obnoxious behavior. Joie de Vivre 15:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring changes on Talk:Jim Bob Duggar

Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. I already took the time to explain in great detail as to why what you are doing is not acceptable, and why my actions were an appropriate response. However I will explain them again for you, since after I explained it, you simply reverted what I did.

Editors are not supposed to sprinkle their comments inside other people's comments, as you did inside my comments. We are supposed to place our comments underneath other people's comments. Refactoring talk pages is permitted, if editors are commenting in a way that compromises the readability of the page, or if they are commenting in a way that is unacceptable.

The three things that you did which are unacceptable are:

You placed editorial comments inside my comments.
You removed the indentation from the paragraphs in the conversation. (Actions 1 and 2 are visible here. All of the intermediate revisions in that diff were made by you.)
You addressed me personally in a section header.
You used ALL CAPS to make attacks at me. (Actions 3 and 4 are visible here. The intermediate revision was made by you.)

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia you will increase the likelihood of facing discipline. Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages before making further changes to Talk:Jim Bob Duggar. Joie de Vivre 14:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism last warning

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Jim Bob Duggar, you will be blocked from editing.

U r bias. If another wikipedian says something I will listen. I did not vandalise, I restored my comments that u took out. I asked u 2 leave my posts but of course, u dont listen 2 me.

And I asked you no less than three times to stop sprinkling your comments inside other people's comments. you have reverted three times to a version with those edits. Your complaints that the policy pages are "too long" do not absolve you from the responsibility to follow Wikipedia Talk page guidelines. Refactoring talk pages is permitted. Removing disruptive edits is permitted. Much of what you are doing is prohibited. You are probably going to get in trouble if you keep it up. Joie de Vivre 22:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I too have asked you numerous times. Y am I supposed to heed u when u ignore me? R we not = ?

Time for a break

I would like to recommend that both of you take a break from editing the Jim Bob Duggar page and its associated talk page for 5 days as a cooling off period. Both of you seem emotionally invested in the article at the moment and I think a break will help calm things down. While this break is going on I will post a request for review both with the Mediation Cabal members as well as to members of the Wikipedia Biography group. Hopefully these impartial editors will be able to offer insights into the article and perhaps another editor will make changes to the article during the break that will satisfy both of you. If during this break you feel the need to address your concerns further please post them on the case page. So for clarity since people from different time zones are involved please refrain from further edits, reversions and comments until Sunday, April 8th.--Ulysses411 04:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I did post at the Med Cab. So now just weight for a response? Lilkunta 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC). [reply]

Time will tell

The nature of the Cabal is rather unorganized so nothing so formal as an automatic response. Most likely other moderators will make comments on the case page or possably on the talk page. I also posted a request for assistance on the Biography Project page so hopefully there will be some responses soon. --Ulysses411 00:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me

Inxs posted on my user page when she should have posted on my disc page. By doing this she made a user page 4 me. Is there a way to undo this? I'm still deciding how I want to build/decorate my user page. Thx.Lilkunta 18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

To request deletion of your Userpage then place {{db-author}} on it and a sysop will delete in probably within the next hour, that should help. Kindest Regards - Telly addict 18:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Very sory, it was a mistake, which I told you at the time and you said was OK. (INXS-Girl 17:18, 03 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I mean sorry, not sory - don't know where my head is at today. (INXS-Girl 19:43, 03 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I know it was an honest mistake. I'm not mad. I just want my page blank until I decide how I want to build my page. How did u even know I said anything about it? Lilkunta 21:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC). [reply]

Hi, because Tellyaddict left me a message, I couldn't understand at first and then remembered what I'd done to your page. Sometimes it's difficult for me because I'm dyslexic, I post and with in seconds I realize what I've done and could kick myself. I can log off now I know I haven't upset you, so goodnight and stay safe.(INXS-Girl 21:24, 03 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Yes pls rest assured that I'm not mad @ all! Lilkunta 21:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC). [reply]