User talk:Knotslanding/Archive 3

Your edit to Walt Disney World Monorail System[edit]

Your edit [1] to the Walt Disney World Monorail System article removed a {{fact}} tag without adding the requested citation. Please do not remove maintenance tags from articles without actually resolving the issue at hand. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag since the information was changed. Knotslanding (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Walt Disney World Monorail System. 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. either way (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in an edit war and have not changed an edit more then 3 times. So you can drop your 3RR warning.Knotslanding (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHOA. Wait a min. Who are you? someone that has NOTHING to do with this article. Don't come in here throwing out warnings to me when you have NO IDEA whats going on. Knotslanding (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 3. Three reverts so far. Further reverts and edit warring will result in a block, either way (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But not all at the some time. I mean heck by your views everyone is in violation of 3RR if they make more then 3 edits EVER. Again I say, Don't come in here throwing out warnings to me when you have NO IDEA whats going on.Knotslanding (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:3RR so you know what's going on here. A revert is undoing someone else's edit. You were reverting other editors when you made those edits. You were undoing their work (i.e., NormalVisual's namings, Kralizec!'s taggings) which is a revert. either way (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the 3RR rule is and I am not in violation of it. So again, Don't come in here throwing out warnings to me when you have NO IDEA whats going on. And I will say this if I am getting the 3RR warning then NormalVisual should too as they changed the article and I went in and fixed it back, then they changed it back 2-3 times again. so if anyone is in violation it's them. Knotslanding (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NormalVisual has only edited the article twice. Only one of these seems to be a revert, so no warning is warranted. You, on the other hand, have reverted three times, as laid out in the diffs above, either way (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You keep talking but fail to listen.Don't come in here throwing out warnings to me when you have NO IDEA whats going on.Knotslanding (talk) 04:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And you keep failing to listen too. You made three reverts. A further revert would earn a block. I read your edit summaries, I read the diffs, and I read the uncivil comments and rants on the talk page of the article. I have more than "no idea" about what's going on here, either way (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 edits you posted are NOT a 3RR violation. 2 of them are similar but not the same, one is a totally different edit therefore breaking the chain of 3 undo's in a row. You really need to go back and read the 3RR rules again.Knotslanding (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reverts do not have to be of the same content. They can be reverts of different content each time within the same article. either way (talk) 04:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote from the 3RR page: Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. either way (talk) 04:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG. Man and they let YOU be a Mod here????? Oh god this place is in trouble. The 3RR rule ONLY applies if the SAME content is reverted back more then 3 times in a row. Other wise anyone that comes in and reads the article and sees 4 things that need changed but not all the same time, then they are in violation. This is not the fact of the rule. If I start reading the article and see a mistake in one section and so I edit it, then I read more and see another and fix it, then another and fix it, 4-5 times. that is not a violation. That is editing as you go along.Knotslanding (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so now I have uncivil comments? Whatever. Just go away. I am not listening to you anymore. I will continue to edit this article and if you block me for doing so I will report you for abuse. You read but never really understood anything going on here. I recommend you going back to whatever other articles you wee watching over and leave this one to those that have been working on it for the past few years.Knotslanding (talk) 04:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember what I said.I will continue to edit this article and if you block me for doing so I will report you for abuse.Knotslanding (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"leave this one to those that have been working on it for the past few years" Sure, when was your first edit to the article? June 2008. When was mine? June...2007. So, I guess you have to leave if we follow your logic? And you're very wrong, it is not the same content, as I clearly pointed out to you in the 3RR rules. You were clearly reverting. NormalVision would make an edit and you'd undo it. Kralizec would make an edit and you'd undo it. And, yes, your comments on the talk page were uncivil, and you're being borderline uncivil here. either way (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sure, when was your first edit to the article? June 2008." Under THIS name. I have been working on this article for a LONG LONG time. You believe what you want. I am closing this matter and will NOT reply to you again. In fact I am removing this from my talk page. Knotslanding (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]