User talk:Kamikaze Highlander/Archived

Wallmart
Congratulations, we have reached a new low. We are now edit warring over the explanation in a POV template. Pathetic. Thanks for being mature and discussing the problems on the talk page as I requested. --Hetar 02:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. In the time I've spent on this article, we had a blanket NPOV, and, over the course of events while editing the article, an explanation became necessary. I've already been discussing it in the talk page, which is how myself and everyone else came to that conclusion. Please, in the future, assume good faith, and try to keep in mind that others have been editing the article before you found it. But, it is good that you're concerned for the article. Kamikaze Highlander 02:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Ase500
Stop acting like your GOD your not, you are not the only one with problems with the Walmart page, so stop acting like you are. And I suggest you get your facts in line. I am a Walmart associate I work at store 3233, care to visit..... The Ace!

Please growup your not the only one that knows anything stop acting like a spoiled brat, I am wondering if you work for a union. Go look up newspaper achives you will find that that store was to be closed prior to the vote. Learn to do some research BEFORE you start reverting other peoples edits and calling them vadlism! The Ace!

Please stop removing the rationale behind the POV sign, as it is there because of lengthy discussions myself and others have had in our time editing this article. Also, do not insert opinions without references. I suggest that anyone reading this review all of your edits to see that you have not removed any relevant information, and, please, spell correctly: misspelling and bad grammar hurt Wikipedia. Kamikaze Highlander 06:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your opinions on the Quebec store in the Unionization section are not facts, and do not comply with NPOV. Kamikaze Highlander 06:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * NO you are not the only one with issues with the POV and you just took it into your hands to change it, See the NPOV part of this page, you need to learn you are not the only one that has a pov on the POV issues, your view does NOT speak for everyone here, you need to growup and accept that not everyone agrees with you, your conversation on the issue is with less then 10 of the editors of this page and therefore you have no clue what everyone else thinks, so stop trying to make this a problem. I have to wonder if you are a union rep yourself you seem to have a real bone to pic with walmart, allow the FACTS to speak! The Ace!


 * As for quebec read a few newspaper cliping from there and you may see the reality, also why don't you call walmart, they will agree with this statments, as well as maybe provide you with newspaper clipping if you asked, I am sure they can copy them for you. The Ace!


 * Or, better yet, Ase, why don't you find this article, and use it as a reference. That way, your opinions will be fact, and therefore you can use them in the article. Until then, please refain from pov-pushing and removing information you don't like, because it hurts Wikipedia. Kamikaze Highlander 06:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As for 3RR, I know I should have stopped, but since it's night, it'd probably take a while for anyone else to revert it, and they might not see that little snip about the "reality" behind the Quebec store in the Unionization section. Besides, 3RR is kind of unfair when the other person doesn't know the rule. Kamikaze Highlander 06:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah and be kicked for Copyright, since the archive it is in is pay only! yeah you would love that. Why don't you refrain from putting your foot in your mouth and help the rest of us do some cleanup of non-fact and fake fact like The whole relclaim Documents which are fakes and have been edited from their computers, but then again you dont know how to tell that do you? Stop with the BS just because my edits don't fit what you want to belive or say about walmart. The Ace!


 * Wow. I don't understand why you use such hostility to me, but I don't appreciate it. Please learn to spell, as your edits and explanations are similar to those of vandals, though I'm not implying that. Alas, Wikipedia is not the place to vent your opinions on Wal-Mart, and unreferenced information is not fact and therefore unacceptable. Thank you. Kamikaze Highlander 06:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, I have no opinion on Wal-Mart. My only concern is for the article.  I don't appreciate it when people who have not been following the discussion come along and make snap decisions without taking into consideration that certain edits have been made for a reason, and even without assuming good faith!  The fact that certain people believe I either work for Wal-Mart or for "the unions" obviously shows that their concern is not for the article but for their point of view, and while I believe people need to be able to have a little leg room to adjust to how Wikipedia works, I can't allow knee-jerk edits that hurt the quality of the article.  That's what the talk page is for.  Kamikaze Highlander 07:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wal-Mart
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --bainer (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not revert or otherwise remove warnings. It is important for other admins to see all warnings which have been given to users in order to determine the appropriate course of action. You were in clear violation of the three revert rule, but I chose not to block you because you two had stopped reverting on your own, however if you make any more reverts or revert this warning again, you will be blocked. --bainer (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made nothing but good and useful contributions to Wikipedia, and I've taken it upon myself to review the Wal-Mart article every day so that I can view how and why any edits are made, and to have a memory for the rationale behind edits so that we do not get into the same conflicts all over again. And I do not appreciate being judged on an arbitrary rule when if I had done nothing his edits may have remained and we'd relive arguments that the talk page is supposed to solve. Kamikaze Highlander 07:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The three revert rule is applied universally to all editors on Wikipedia, regardless of their other contributions. Ase500 has also been warned in exactly the same fashion as you have. Remember that almost nothing is so important that you have to act immediately, and indeed acting alone is almost always a bad decision, because that will only fuel conflict. In future, try to build consensus for your position instead of conducting an edit war. --bainer (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate if you could add a tag to his page to show that he has added a pov opinion to the article, which was a direct violation of NPOV, as well as misspelled, and continued to revert my attempts to remove it, which is clearly vandalism. He has also attacked me personally, when I had no quarrel with him to begin with. I don't appreciate being treated equally to a vandal, given that Wikipedia is not a democracy for that very reason. Kamikaze Highlander 08:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This policy does not apply to... correcting simple vandalism...

His edit to the article, and the cause of all of this. There's no source for this:

While it is easy to see how critics may come to this conclution, Wal-Mart did have plans to close this store prior to the union vote. Infact the union vote was a last ditch effort by associates to keep the store open.


 * I strongly suggest you read Vandalism carefully -- in particular, the section entitled "What vandalism is not". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me rephrase what I'm saying. That he added an opinion, misspelled as it is, isn't vandalism alone.  That he continued to revert it is.  His continued attempts to hurt the quality and integrity of Wikipedia is vandalism.  Besides, his initial edit violated npov, and that was my initial reason for removing it.Kamikaze Highlander 15:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. That he continued to revert it is a content dispute; you engaged in edit war with him, and he engaged in edit war with you. Disputes of these sorts are to be worked out on talk pages, not in edit comments. 3RR is quite strict; I suspect you would have a lot of problems finding much support for your theory that it does not apply in this case. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I was not going to sit back and let his edit remain in the article despite violating Npov and having no sources or references. An edit war implies that I disagreed with his statement, which is neither true nor relevant.  His statement had no place in Wikipedia and it was my job to make sure it was removed.  This sort of thing has already been worked out on the talk page several times before.
 * Besides, 3RR doesn't work if the other person doesn't know about it. He violated 3RR before I did, which, had he stopped, my revert would have been on the Wal-Mart page last and we'd be discussing whether his edit should remain, not the other way around.  If he wanted his edit to be on the page, he should have discussed it in the talk page. I don't need permission to remove npov violations.  Kamikaze Highlander 16:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to regret not having reported his violation of 3RR, despite the possibility that it might have resulted in his being blocked. Kamikaze Highlander 16:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You should have done so, rather than engage in edit war and violate 3RR yourself. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Will you please let me remove the warning tags from my talk page and my 3RR section, since I am already well aware of Wikipedia standards and the issue has already been resolved. Kamikaze Highlander 16:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: With all due respect

 * I hate to bother you on your talk page, but seeing as how 3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism, or misspelled statements of opinion without sources, I was wondering if you could please remove your warning tags from my talk page, or give me your permission to do so myself.
 * Ase500's comment had no place in the article: While it is easy to see how critics may come to this conclution, Wal-Mart did have plans to close this store prior to the union vote. Infact the union vote was a last ditch effort by associates to keep the store open. And, as you are well aware, 3RR does not mean to let this sort of thing remain just because it has survived three reverts.
 * Thank you for your time. Kamikaze Highlander 15:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The 3RR does not apply to simple vandalism, the emphasis being on "simple". Adding graffiti, blanking whole articles, that sort of thing is simple vandalism. An argument about whether or not to include a certain sentence is a content dispute, not vandalism. As William M. Connolley put it, "Anything that is *real* vandalism will be picked up by others. If only you think its vandalism, it isn't." You need to follow the dispute resolution process rather than reverting. --bainer (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Does this mean the situation is resolved, and you can remove my tag from the 3RR board finally? Kamikaze Highlander 00:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)