User talk:Cactusjump/Archive 2

Jon & Kate Plus 8
User:Ad84 is very close to violating the WP:3RR three revert rule. Your edits are definitely correct (his is repetitious and uneccesary). If he messes with it again, let someone else revert so you don't get caught up with a 3RR. Later! Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, keep an eye on it. Thanks. Cactusjump (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm Sorry!
I'm trying to send message.

This Is the userbox I made:

Do You Like It? How do I make a code for it? Example:

Kate plus 8 commnet
Sorry! I did not intend to offend. I will keep your message in mind for future posts. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.20.11 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Cactusjump (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Jon & Kate Plus 8
I hate to admit it, but that last edit you reverted gave me a chuckle (a much needed one at that). :P --132 18:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No kidding. I was thinking "A for creativity," but unfortunately had to revert. :)  Definitely brightened up my day. Cactusjump (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You too? --132 21:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, yes. I just saw yours too.  I seriously am going nuts with this user.  It's like talking to a brick wall--I'm at a total loss.  Did I do the right thing or is there something I'm missing?? Cactusjump (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Cactus, you're doing the right thing. Should there be additional attempts to edit war, a report to WP:3RN should be made. Push come to shove, you might be able to find a sympathetic admin will to semi-protect for a bit. Vicenarian  (T · C) 21:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You're doing fine. They're definitely crossing the line. Discussion, basic intervention, and then to WQA. --132 21:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already tried WP:3RN so this is my last straw. At one point I sat back and thought, "Am I really reporting someone for this??" and it made me laugh.  But I guess that's what's so frustrating. Cactusjump (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, stranger things have happened. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicenarian (talk • contribs) 21:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha. It can happen over the weirdest things. --132 21:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So I've seen--with graham cracker crust. Haha! Cactusjump (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It just blows my mind. :P --132

←Mmm, graham cracker crust. NEVER edit while hungry... Vicenarian (T · C) 21:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Jon & Kate
Please keep an eye on the article. R7604 is back removing and changing stuff without discussing any of it. She huffed and puffed and took out the entire DVD table because it wasn't her version, as well as the ages of the Gosselins. She also removed a bunch of internal links that needed to be linked to as well as other unnecessary changes. We may need to ask to have the article protected again if she continues to ignore the consensus on the talk page. --132 21:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. I already left her a note because she didn't use an edit summary and I couldn't tell what the last couple changes were. I'll keep an eye on it. Cactusjump (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Jon & Kate Plus 8
Why? What for? R7604 (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do not wish to discuss your reverts then I will have to list it under WP:content dispute and get a WP:Third opinion. Cactusjump (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I did "discuss" it with you. Can I help if you erased it? R7604 (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggested we move it to the Talk:Jon & Kate Plus 8 article to open it up to other editors, and you replied, "Why? What for?" That doesn't sound like you want to discuss it. Cactusjump (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well you're the one who jumped in there. It was fine and I told you, I linked Kate's name under "Gosselins" section, so everyone could read more about. Kill two birds with one stone.

Don't need a "see also", it doesn't look right. When I first clicked on it, I thought was something else to with the show or the episodes, it's not. R7604 (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As you can see on your talk page (and the J&K+8 talk page), I'm pretty much done discussing this. You win. Cactusjump (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism versus a BLP violation
I just thought I'd let you know that I really feel like a firmer warning (which I left) regarding BLP issues was more in order than a vandalism template, regarding the edits by the IP at Jon Gosselin. What are your thoughts on the matter? Unitanode 23:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I was going to leave a stronger one, but I went on the side of caution.  Whatever's clever. :) Cactusjump (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I erased my warning, since yours is more appropriate. Cactusjump (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. I tend to be a little more "jumpy" about BLPs, though, since those tend to cause the greatest kerfuffles, and also present the largest real-life problems for the subjects of the articles. Unitanode  23:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Very true. I didn't even know there was a BIO-specific one, so I'll make sure to use that in the future. Cactusjump (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really use templates (and that wasn't one), but just write my own message when I (rarely) leave warnings. Unitanode  23:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)