User talk:Festermunk

Please observe talk page rules

Per your interrupting comments here. Please see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines and Wikipedia:Talk_page#Others.27_comments. You don't interrupt a person's points with your comments. You can copy the relevant comments and then reply to those. This is second time in two days I've had to do this. Did you notice yesterday? Thanks. CarolMooreDC 18:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

[When you said, " You don't interrupt a person's points with your comments." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Festermunk&diff=519617814&oldid=517263109], can you find the specific clause in Wikipedia's talk page guidelines that says you don't interrupt a person's points with your comments?Festermunk (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

First, let's not split up the discussion. Obviously the language in policy links I gave you is not as clear as it seems to me it used to be, but I'm working on getting that clarified and meanwhile requested you stop it. I added my full comments above yours; I'll keep on doing it. So if you want to be uncooperative and uncollaborative, others can judge that as they may. CarolMooreDC 21:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

From my talk page: As per your quote here," I added my full comments above yours; I'll keep on doing it. " I should point out that many people do do that. Also, I'd like an answer to my question please, can you find the specific clause in Wikipedia's talk page guidelines that says you don't interrupt a person's points with your comments?Festermunk (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Here and at my talk page: Per the link I provided you above : Interruptions: In some cases, it is okay to interrupt a long contribution, either with a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or with a heading (if the contribution introduces a new topic or subtopic; in that case, one might add :Heading added for REASON by CarolMooreDC 14:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC) below the heading to make the nature of the change clearer). When introducing an interruptive break, please add — USER NAME OR IP , — (continues after insertion below.) before the interruption. One may also manually ensure that attribution is preserved by copy-pasting the original signature to just before the interruption. However, this assumes a really long thread and the editor doesn't object, which most do and I do. CarolMooreDC 14:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Continued edit warring RT (TV network)‎

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Comment: Obviously you were blocked last time for 3rr. But as the template makes clear, just reverting things that you don't like when your initial revert was reverted (and by someone else, not me) and doing so under the pretext they are being discussed at the talk page, is a problem. Continuing to interrupt a person's talk page entries after they have objected twice and hassle them about it is also disruptive edit warring behavior. Please remove your comments from inside mine immediately. I just want you to be aware of what I perceive your behavior as being and as admins might also perceive it as being, should it continue in this pattern. CarolMooreDC 14:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "RT (TV network)". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 15:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Civility

You included a couple of obscenities in the DRN discussion. The DRN guidelines require civility. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that two more insulting obscenities against me were in edit summaries on one article here and here, including attacking me for an edit Festermunk wrote. I see they got rid of Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance so I assume they want us to take complaints about such persistent behavior higher up the chain. CarolMooreDC 21:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that on WP:DRN Festermunk quotes me and responds: "I only see one number where there was clear agreement" No kidding, since you can't read, but then again that wasn't a surprise.

Note that this about the 15th Festermunk has made such insulting comment at DRN or at RT Talk page or in edit summaries. Now that two people have complained about her/his incivility on her/his talk page, I am seriously considering taking him/her to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. CarolMooreDC 23:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)