User talk:Rollosmokes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk Page Archive #1 covers topics discussed between January 20 and June 11, 2006.

Talk Page Archive #2 covers topics discussed between June 12 and September 8, 2006.

Talk Page Archive #3 covers topics discussed between September 9 and December 1, 2006.

Talk Page Archive #4 covers topics discussed between December 2, 2006, and February 20, 2007.

For all new topics, feel free to vent NOW.

Contents 1 YES Network 2 Comproise 3 Metromedia 4 Blocked 5 Request to have block lifted 5.1 Blocked?? 6 Metromedia 7 Editwar block on Metromedia 7.1 Blocked again?!?!? 8 Stop reverting people's edits on the Soul Train page!!! 9 Edit war on Metromedia 10 Philadelphia swap of '95 11 Eazy-E 12 May need some backup on WZMY/WXPO 13 BenH

[edit] YES Network

Hi Rollo,

Thanks for your note. I've protected the page for now. Protection is not an endorsement for the version which is currently shown. Like any content dispute, I reccommend that you take this dispute to the article talk page. I will note that edits like this are not "vandalism". Please do not refer to other editors' work as "vandalism"; even if you feel the edit is sub-standard, calling another person's work vandalism only escalates the situation, and engenders hard feelings. Collaborative editing shouldn't work this way.

I will leave a note on the other user(s) talk page(s) as well. There was no reason for an edit summary like the one used here. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 18:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comproise

Can we come to a comprise on the YES Network Article. I belive that organizing the shows should be organized by topic (eg. Baseball, Football, etc) it is easier to follow. What do you think?. User:NYYankee2684 15:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metromedia

It is not redundant to put the AM and FM suffix especially in the case of there being two stations with the same call-signs with two separate Wikipedia articles, it indicates a separation of the two stations identification, Also it is REDUNDANT to put Owned by when the ownership information is listed under the Current Owners category, Are there really stupid people out there that don't understand that Current Owners indicates that the names listed IS the current owner of the station, There is no need to put Owned by next to the company's name. I am reverting your reverts and in the future if you have a question about something post it in the Talk page first so it can be discussed. They call me Mr. Pibb 13:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a request for mediation in this matter and I reverted your reverts. Please do not revert them at this time so that the mediator can see what is what. They call me Mr. Pibb 06:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Hi Rollo,

It is with heavy heart that I have blocked you from editing for 24 hours. I feel especially bad because I know you were considering leaving Wikipedia recently, and this block will certainly not help that feeling.

However, your recent edit warring at Metromedia at last convinced me you may need a break. I don't know what else to do. The versions of the articles you write are, in my judgement, more accurate, but you are constantly reverting to your version with sometimes rude or hostile language in edit summaries, and have no seeming ability to abide by Wikipedia's policy on civility, in almost any case. Your talk page is a testament alone to the number of situations that you have handled badly.

I have asked you repeatedly to refrain from calling others' work vandalism, unless it truly is vandalism. I'm not even going to bother giving examples where I have asked you not to do this. You stated earlier on my talk page that "at no point have I labeled any of his changes as vandalism, nor did I do such thing with NYYankee at YES Network." but in fact this edit summary is continued vandalism by aforementioned IP user, and that IP user is obviously NYYankee, as you state here (along with again asserting that the edits are vandalism).

I agree with you that in both articles, your version was probably better. You are a good editor. The problem is that with the rude messages, you inflame the situation, on a nearly constant basis. Then it gets worse as the edit wars start. We've been through this at least a dozen times. Enough is enough, so I am reluctantly blocking you. Take a short break, and please return feeling refreshed and ready to edit the encyclopedia once more. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to have block lifted

[edit] Blocked??

Firsfron is only doing his job, but I disagree with his assertion that I was rude or hostile. I checked back at the edit summaries for both Metromedia and YES Network, and I don't see anything that can be truly considered as "rude" or "hostile".

When I did use the term vandalism it was ONLY after the same user (NYYankee2684) made the same changes multiple times after I contacted him about those changes. Here's the facts.

Of the recent changes I made to Metromedia since the dispute with "Mr. Pibb" began:

• I said NOTHING in the edit summary SEVEN TIMES.
• Once I used a phrase I commonly use, "reverted back to a previous version (redundancies/unnecessary changes)", which I believe is general and not threatening at all.
• And, once I mentioned seeking administrator assistance with the dispute.
• I reiterate again that "Mr. Pibb" accused me of violating WP:3RR, which I clearly did not do.

As it pertains to NYYankee2684 and YES Network:

• NINE times I said NOTHING.
• THREE times I used "reverted back to a previous version", and then explained my reasons in non-threatening language. Is saying "lots of cruft and unnecessary changes" and "this was a mess" considered to be rude and hostile?
• After NYYankee, using the IP alias "24.48.98.59" wrote in an edit summary "Sounds Better Than The Ass Rolosmoke who should be banned" (which is a true example of hostility and incivility), I summarized the incivility in my revertion of the article.
• NYYankee/"24.48.98.59" made the same changes after the incivil comment, and reverted back. I saw this as vandalism, and summarized it as such when I re-reverted.
• And, once I directed NYYankee to "read his talk page". Is that hostile?

Also of note: NYYankee and the IP alias tried to delete their talk pages at least twice. I brought the comments back before Firsfron stepped in on my request. And, he/they made nine edits to the article between Feb. 18 and Feb. 25 -- eight of those edits were COMPLETE REVERTS that were not summarized as such (check for yourself if you care to). And three of them took place within the same 24-hour period ([1]) ([2]) ([3]). As it has been established that NYYankee and the IP are one and the same, he should have been held in violation of the three-revert rule.

In my opinion the block in effect against me is unwarranted, and I am requesting it be lifted. Rollosmokes 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metromedia

Well irregardless of the opinions of you and wikipedian administrators, my belief is that that is ridiculous redundancy. I will not interfere with the metromedia article but i think pibb is in the right. JUst because they (the articles) have long been formatted in this way does not mean that you are correct. for the time being i will no longer revert or edit it, but will leave my opinion that the tables are redundant. Jorobeq 07:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editwar block on Metromedia

You are blocked for 48h for editwarring on Metromedia; see revert 1, 2, 3, 4. Please note that neither you nor any group of which you are a part owns any particular article, as you seem to assume judging from this comment. Please engage in discussion on the talk page about why the format you prefer is better, rather than editwarring about it. Thanks. Sandstein 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked again?!?!?

This is ridiculous. I am blocked but Mr. Pibb isn't?? He's the one who started this edit war in the first place! If he had tried to reason with me instead of acting arrogant and cavalier about his edits, we would not be where we are today!

To correct something: I am not a part of WP:TVS, though I primarily work on television-related articles. I was just emphasizing what has been done with station charts at Metromedia and other articles. Though I am passionate about the quality of my work, I have never made an ownership claim to any Wikipedia article.

I am requesting that this unfair block be lifted. I was not uncivil towards Mr. Pibb, nor did I violate any other guidelines such as 3RR. If not, I wish for Mr. Pibb to be given the same 48-hour ban (as he is just as guilty as I am). Rollosmokes 00:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've received your e-mail. If you want an admin to review your block, you need to post {{unblock|your reason}} on your user talk page, otherwise your request will not be noticed. On the merits, I decline to unblock you. No matter what the other party did, it was you who systematically undid the changes by Mr. Pibb over a period of several days without engaging in discussion about it; this is called edit warring. Please, after the block expires, seek community input about the format of the table at issue, such as through a third opinion. Sandstein 07:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop reverting people's edits on the Soul Train page!!!

The edits you perfer quite frankly (at least in my honest estimation), aren't as clean (and/or concise) as the subsequent edits from me. It's getting really, really annoying for you to act as if edits from anybody else seem to consitiute as vandalism. TMC1982 10:01 p.m., 9 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I never labelled any changes on the Soul Train article as vandalism. Secondly, the extra subsectioning in your version messed up the continuity of the text, and is otherwise unnecessary. That was my reason for reverting back, and I will reiterate again that I did not label your edit as "vandalism". When my block is lifted, I will change it back. Rollosmokes 06:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What you call "messed up continuity", I call breaking the article down in sections for easier reading. You don't exactly "own" the Soul Train page!!! TMC1982 2:28 p.m., 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with ownership, and everything to do with style and continuity, and I feel that your version has too much subsectioning that is not necessary. You also changed the order of a few paragraphs. All told it's a mess of an article, and is certainly not easier to read as you imply. Rollosmokes 17:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The order of the paragraphs were changed to help gel with on another theme-wise. And even so, your "style" is personally, rather slapped together in a slap-dash fashion (i.e. the references, the dates, etc.) There's far more in-depth info about Soul Train that's needed, piece by piece. Even so, we probably wouldn't even allow some sort of compromise edit. TMC1982 1:57 p.m., 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it's slapped together as you claim. The structure of the text in an article such as this should be based on chonology. You don't start the article with a sentence discussing the longevity of the program, you begin at THE BEGINNING. Everything else falls into place after that. And again, there is no need to sub-section every little part of the article. As far as more in-depth info, when someone can find more, then we will add it, but it should stay within this basic (correct) structure of the article as it is now, with no further sub-sectioning. Rollosmokes 04:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Trust me when I tell you that I'm going to be watching you closely if you try to revert even the slightest edit or alteration of mine!!! TMC1982 10:35 p.m., 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, that sounds like an ownership claim to me. Be careful. Rollosmokes 05:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war on Metromedia

Rollo,

Was there really a need for this revert? Comments on the talk page indicate several users think the "Owned by... owned by:" thing is redundant, and your change has already been reverted. The last thing this article needs is a continuing edit war.

I'm not sure what guideline states there needs to be two places where "owned by" is written, whether that's at the TV station WikiProject or at the radio station WikiProject. Whereever it is, however, it is only a guideline, and does not need to be rigidly enforced, especially to the point of edit warring. Please just stop reverting these editors and try to come to a consensus on the article's talk page. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tried, but none could be reached as all parties involved feel very strongly that we're all in the right. I'm honestly starting to believe that Mr. Pibb nitpicked here just to pick a fight with someone, and he's apparently gotten favor with my recent unfair block. What's going on here -- I'm having article structure disagreements with another user over Soul Train -- is making me reconsider leaving this project altogether. Rollosmokes 05:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be unfortunate to lose you as a contributor. At the same time, I'm not seeing any comments from you at all on Talk:Metromedia. It doesn't seem like you've made a real effort at compromise, if you're unwilling to even discuss the edits on the talk page. I do not know why Mr. Pibb din't receive a second block for edit warring, while you did. Certainly I can understand why that would lead to further hard feelings and a desire to just leave the project. At the same time, the fact that you were blocked and he was not is somewhat tangental to the original argument. Please seek a greater consensus by at least trying to discuss this rationally on the article's talk page. The article is currently protected, so no one may edit it. As always, protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philadelphia swap of '95

There's a lot of circumstantial evidence to support that CBS delayed the swap of affiliations between KYW-TV and WCAU-TV until the start of the '95-'96 season. WCAU was a solid runner-up in the ratings. No way in the world CBS would want to lose such a strong performer midway through the season. Don't see how that's trivial.Blueboy96 14:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eazy-E

How the hell is Eazy-E born on 1963 it's 64. Next Fiday

As I wrote on the discussion page, how else could he have been 31 years old when he died? Do the math, and you'll figure it out -- September to September is ONE WHOLE YEAR; September to March is SIX MONTHS -- so Eazy was 31 years, 6 months old when he left us.

And BTW, if all the obits AND his tombstone say he was born in 1963, then how can we dispute that? Rollosmokes 05:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You Win Damn it's 63 not 64 dont tell me to do the mathUser:Next Fiday

In the words of Jermaine Jackson, don't take it personal. Rollosmokes 07:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May need some backup on WZMY/WXPO

Could use some backup in case I get flamed for splitting WZMY-TV and WXPO-TV into separate pages. Apparently when they were merged last year, nobody bothered to notice that they were licensed in different cities. Add that to the fact that 14 years elapsed between WXPO going off the air and WZMY (then WNDS) coming back on the air under a different license--not even close. Blueboy96 04:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BenH

76.5.155.175 is a BenH sock ... this is going to his ISP. Looking at his edits, he's staying in Philadelphia and New York so far. If he hits Charlotte, I'm gonna be mad. Blueboy96 05:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Strike that ... he's hit D.C. and Toledo as well. This is going to his ISP.Blueboy96 05:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And as long as he has access to different computers, there may be no way of stopping him completely. I'm just tired of cleaning up his poop. Rollosmokes 05:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if Embarq nukes him, that'll cut down his options considerably--that's where nearly all of his IPs trace to. And I think he's editing from the same computer--he seems to be on a DSL account. I just emailed them ... hopefully they'll do something, as he is now in violation of Embarq's AUP. Especially since he's been community banned.Blueboy96 05:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)