Talk:Jim Bob Duggar/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Discuss encyclopedic edits

User Joie de Vivre (talk · contribs) reverted a thoughtful and encyclopedic edit of mine. I have restored my edit, which was not minor. Nor was the reversion, which should not have been marked m for minor:

Edit summary: "m (Reverted good faith edits by Athaenara; The subject of the article is Jim Bob Duggar. An article on the Duggar family was deleted as non-notable. Let's stick to the subject.. using TW) "

My edit did not, as the edit summary suggests, shift the emphasis of the article from its subject.

I linked this article talk page section in my own edit summary when I restored my edit. I ask that user Joie de Vivre discuss here, in more depth than edit summaries allow, his or her reasoning on this matter.

Specifically, I ask this because the same user edit warred for several weeks earlier this year, with user Lilkunta (talk · contribs). I participated in resolving that (see MedCab case, AIV, BLP/N and AN/3RR reports). I don't want to see a recurrence of disruption here. — Athaenara ✉ 07:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break. The "edit warring" is better described as "cleaning up after Lilkunta", who was indefinitely blocked for repeated incivility and reluctance to cooperate after numerous warnings. I was merely trying to reason with an unreasonable person.

I'm pretty surprised that you'd point out a MedCab request that I called, as evidence that I pose a risk of "disruption". I was under the impression that asking for mediation demonstrates an attempt to cooperate. Your choice to smear me for my involvement in a MedCab case doesn't make it look like a very good idea to go to the MedCab for help. Joie de Vivre 01:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, besides my MedCab request, the 3RR report and the BLP/N report were both by me, I was reporting Lilkunta's behavior and asking for help. The AIV report was someone else reporting Lilkunta. None of these had to do with me personally, your inference that I pose a risk of "disruption" because of these is just not accurate. Joie de Vivre 01:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what you infer, my post specifically addressed your edit and edit summary. The links were pertinent to my participation in resolving earlier disputes. — Athaenara ✉ 23:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your participation in resolving a conflict with a problematic editor, but it looks like you brought up the subject to bode negatively against me. As far as the idea that I was 'inferring' anything, I assure you that there is no hidden meaning in my comment. Joie de Vivre 16:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)