User talk:LjL/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

RE

Just to clarify -- I have absolutely no history with the user in question; I just happened upon the posts through recent changes. GAB^Hello! 18:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: well, as you may have inferred, I do have some history, and I've always found him very rude and scorching. But I won't/can't pursue this any further, either, because I already filed two ANI reports about him in the past, and they were both simply forgotten away, with him mocking me about "how many more reports will you file" and things like that, so I'm not going to file a third just to be mocked more. I guess sometimes people who are a negative force on Wikipedia will just stick around and annoy others indefinitely. LjL (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:ROPE is very real. In a couple days, after Christmas, I am considering going to ANI, in light of the recent userpage edits made. GAB^Hello! 18:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

		Happy Christmas!
		Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Steve Comisar Article Changes

What was wrong with the January 16th version of Comisar? It gave a new "con man" fact and mentioned he was an actor without giving it too much credence or a separate acting career section. Everything else was the same as the previous version. Please reconsider your deletion and revert back if you think January 16 was fair. Amit Mishra, India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniamit (talk • contribs) 08:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Maniamit: similar, or rather almost identical, changes were made several times, and rejected several times. Someone can't get a free pass by just making them yet again, without even an edit summary. You don't understand why I undid the edit - well, that's unsurprising if you don't know the backstory, since I gave no edit summary (because it was one in many reverts that had to be made). See the problem with making unexplained edits like these?

If you, or anybody else, wants to add information about acting back into the article, I'd say after the events (which I encourage you to investigate), the burden is squarely on them to take it to the article's talk page and make a good case for adding them. See also the latest section and plea that someone made at that talk page. LjL (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Jumping into an edit war (again)

Unless the rules have changed recently, the editor who adds material to an article has to justify including it, not an editor who removes it. In any event, see User talk:Broadmoor#African Americans, where I tried to discuss the matter with the editor who added it. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Next time I suggest you discuss article issues on the article's talk page, as I'm going to do in a minute. There are also no "rules", especially not ones that let you revert based on what a template's documentation does not state. LjL (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

With respect to your comment at WP:ANEW, I understand the concept of a bright-line rule—which is why I knew better than to cross the line. I also started discussing my first revert before I made my second revert. English may not be your first language, but saying that I "came very close to violating 3RR [my]self by reverting 3 times" is just silly. I didn't "come very close to violating 3RR"—it's a bright line, so either I violated it or I didn't. In fact, I didn't. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: if you refresh your memory by reading WP:3RR again, I'm sure you'll find that it does highlight how not violating the "bright-line rule" but purposely coming as close as possible to it and then stopping (or doing things like making the 4th edit just after the 24 hours, for instance) is considered unacceptable. You discussed your reverts in the wrong place (which is not just a procedural detail, but is actually problematic to third parties like I initially was, who come to see what's going on), and as I brought it to the right place, you reverted again. Edit warring is edit warring whether or not you reach a 4th revert - that's exactly what WP:Edit warring says - and edit warring is never considered an okay thing to engage in. One revert with a meaningful edit summary may not be edit warring, but more than that is hard to defend in most cases, even if it isn't immediate WP:ANEW material. Finally, rest assured that you don't need to worry about English being my first or second language when judging my contributions, as I feel comfortable enough with it to let people assume I mean what I say. LjL (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to refresh your memory. You seem to be confusing 3RR and edit warring. One cannot "come very close to violating 3RR"—either one has performed more than three reverts or one has not. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)