User talk:WillyWonty

Username
I've undone the username block. Cheers. Sasquatch t|c

Thank you!

Violation of Three Revert Rule in Rush Limbaugh Page
You may not have realized it but you are currently in violation of the Three Revert Rule WP:3RR on the Rush Limbaugh page for your repeated insertion of the same quote on the ESPN controversy section while this is being discussed in the talk page. Rather than reporting this violation, If you back out your last revert (which readded this quote) and adhere to the 3RR rule in the future I'll consider you back in compliance. Reverting YOUR offending entry is considered a good faith move and is not considered to be an additional Revert violation. We have been discussing the validity of including this quote in talk. Please continue to participate in the discussion and present evidence of why this quote is necessary to the article rather than reverting others changes or readding it. Caper13 19:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unbelievable. Caper13 is trying to bully good faith editors on their own Talk pages.  What a laughable disgrace. Eleemosynary 09:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation on Rush Limbaugh Page
Would you mind weighing in with your opinion on the Chelsea Clinton incident? It is now under mediation. Eleemosynary 05:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice! I just provided some sources from news organizations discussing this isssue within the lat 5 years. WillyWonty 19:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

there are obviously at least two different sides to the limbaugh page... caper13 and the fox news version against everyone else. there are enough limbaugh fanatics to thwart any inclusion of bad press by others on his wiki page. if enough of us can keep an eye on this we can keep the page from being a fansite and have it be more unbiased. please keep up the good work you have been doing. Brendan19 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiable sources
Willy, in reply, The only reason I havent read the sources is because they are your sources, not mine, and you have been unable to cite sources that are verifiable on the web to back up your claim to the lasting impact and importance of this event. I am trusting you that the sources refer to the incidents you claim and have asked you several times to find sources that are verifiable. Subsequently blaming me because your sources are not verifable is hardly fair. My edits arent even contradicting your sources. I am just condensing the section because consensus believes that this section is far too large and undue weight is being put on this event. Having three seperate people saying essentially the same thing in three seperate sentences is a little bit much, especially for an event that is barely notable on its own. Additionally, I would caution you against engaging in an edit war or violating 3RR, because if you continue reverting this article you will be in violation of 3RR Caper13 01:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I retained the statement where Sajak said that the confrontation was legendary around CBS... How is that me trying to push my POV? (my POV in fact is the opposite: that the event is not notable or legendary). I just removed statements from two unrelated people who said essentially the same thing. Consensus found that we did not need all the quotes. I kept the quote from the primary source. What incorrect statement am I attributing to Sajak?. Fair warning. Fair warning, your last revert put you in violation of 3RR and I will file a notice on the 3RR board. Caper13 01:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When you write that "In a 2001 interview Sajak said Limbaugh's confrontation with the activists was 'legendary around CBS'" that is a complete misrepresentation. It wasn't "Limbaugh's confrontation" that he was saying was legendary. This is absolutely clear if you check the sources. Two of the sources that you removed make clear that it wasn't "Limbaugh's confronatation," but Limbaugh's difficulty in handling them which was legendary. But, that doesn't quite match up with your personal point of view does it? So you removed it. That you and Dual Freeq share a point of view and are editing this article to conform to it should not be confused with some type of "consensus." Seriously, you two have been wrong on every point -- whether there were sources immediately after the incident, whether there were sources years after the incident, whether anyone thought the incident was notable, whether the incident was about abortion, and on and on and on. And now, rather than admit your personal points of view are wrong, you'll just edit the article so that it conforms to your personal point of view? That's a really bad idea. WillyWonty 02:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Give me the quote where your source cites Sajak as saying it was Limbaugh's inability to handle the activists, as opposed to the entire confrontation itself, that was legendary around CBS.Caper13 02:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Look. If you reverse your last revert and bring yourself back into 3RR compliance before the Admin acts, I'll remove the notice on the 3RR board. I have no desire to see you get blocked. I just want you to follow the rules.Caper13 02:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Three Revert Rule Warning
Well even Caper doesn't want you blocked and as you're still relatively new I'm not going to block you for breaking the three revert rule. However, I'd like to show you and how and why you broke it and how you could avoid doing that again:


 * Your reverts are fairly clear - four times you removed other users changes back to the previous version
 * The policy begins: 'Edit warring is not productive'. No matter how wrong or right you are, there is no excuse to take the lazy route to editing and simply undo the changes of others
 * Wikipedia is collaborative. No matter how biased and unverifiable you feel another user's changes are, there is probably some common ground and something from their edit worth salvaging
 * Use common sense; do not participate in an edit war. Rather than exceeding the three-revert limit, discuss the matter with other editors. If any of them come close to breaching the policy themselves, this may indicate that the page should be protected until disputes are resolved. This part of the policy shows that we expect editors to work together or to follow our dispute resolution process
 * Indeed, It is strongly recommended that you revert any particular change no more than once (see Harmonious editing club).

If you break this rule again, you will received a block for it. We do not want to lose contributors, but such rules prevent Wikipedia from decending into an unstable farce. The page is now protected from editing - I urge you to use this opportunity to engage in conversations with the other users on the page. --Robdurbar 09:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your response worries me because it suggests you have understood any of what I've tried to expalin to you. The key thing to 'get' about editing on Wikipedia and the 3RR rule is that we work collaboratively. Reverting someone's edits repeatedly only gets people rieled up and creates an unstable page. Tag an article as being non-neutral and discuss the changes on the article's talk pages. We have things such as the request for comment where you can get outsiders to give their opinion on an issue; if the others are so wrong, then other editors will agree with you and not them.


 * The important thing is that YES, it is better to have a "wrong" version of an article - with a non-neutral tag and excepting liabelous information - temporarily which is then convereted to a "correct" version after discussion than an unstable constantly reverted and now protected article. Edit warring and reverting do not work. It is not in your interest or Wikipedia's if you revert constantly. --Robdurbar 11:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Although neutrality is part of the problem, that's not the main problem right now. Right now we have an article that attributes things to sources which the sources don't say. This is because of the larger problem of editors changing sourced sections without bothering to read the sources. For example, the article attributes a sentence on why a studio audience was cleared to the Boston Globe, when the Boston Globe wtites about the confrontation that led to the audience being cleared. It doesn't say the audience was cleared, let alone why. But, if you think the best way to get complete fabrications out of the article is to just leave them in for now, I'll give that a shot and see where it goes. Thanks for your help. WillyWonty 01:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Willy. I removed the reference to the Globe article as you said it was not being used correctly. If you had stated the problem clearly earlier, I would have done it earlier. Caper13 05:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)