User talk:Rollosmokes/Big Rollo vs. CoolKatt number 99999

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 NEW discussion 2 Sorry it's had to come to this. 3 Blueboy weighs in 4 Comments 5 Reply to the comment left on my talk page 6 Coolkatt-written article nominated for deletion

[edit] NEW discussion

Hi Rollosmokes! I see here you have reverted someone's edits while referring to their edits as vandalism. You have been asked on several occasions, both by members of the WP:TV stations team (like myself and Morgan), and by "outsiders" (your word for other Wikipedia editors) to please stop doing so. An edit that you don't agree with is not a case of vandalism, even if it's poorly phrased, contains speculation, or is just plain wrong. Writing that you are reverting "vandalism" gives the impression that you're fighting vandalism, when in fact you are just altering the content of an article. Please make sure that the content of your edit summary reflects what you're actually doing within the article. You can learn more about what constitutes vandalism on the handy link Morgan provided on the project talk page. Thanks in advance,--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rollo, Yes, I saw your talk page yesterday. Cheers! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 15:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(This is the second time I have to write this - lost it the first time going back and forth. Sigh...)

First off, it's too bad you didn't put this on a user subpage (were you trying to be as much unlike CoolKatt as possible?) because all discussion now has to take place on here, and not a separate talk page.

Second, I take umbrage and offence at your characterization of me as a "supporter" of CoolKatt, because I am trying to be an impartial and evenhanded (and evenheaded) mediator in this dispute. (I think the same is the case for Firsfron. As he stated in one of your quoted discussions above, he's trying to get involved because both of you are violating Wikipedia policy. You're not being a saint yourself, so don't label people as "CoolKatt supporters" just because they've thought maybe, just maybe, you've done something wrong in all of this.) In fact, because you have something he doesn't - actual supporters - I am more likely to report CoolKatt for WP:3RR violations than anyone else. (When you say "CoolKatt wants NO ONE to change what he has done (WP:POINT)", that's more like WP:OWN, in my opinion. CoolKatt saying he's only referring to your edits as vandalism because you're referring to his as vandalism, now, that's WP:POINT.)

If you need examples to show that, at least, I'm not some sort of sockpuppet, see User talk:Morgan Wick/2006 Network Shift and User talk:CoolKatt number 99999/Callsigns. (I do agree that CoolKatt's overuse of subpages needs a through reading of WP:NOT.) Also see [1] (I correct CoolKatt's implication that there is consensus on the issue of whether to include OOM stations) and [2] (this one should be obvious on a first read).

I am considering contributing to the RfC, but I may also start a new RfC to get more voices to form a consensus on the matter of OOM stations. (CoolKatt could avoid a lot of problems by throughly explaining why he insists on OOM stations, instead of imposing his will on pages and thus causing the edit/revert war to spill onto yet more pages, which is exasperating to everyone. I've explained it more than he has and what I support is an extremely limited compromise.) Morgan Wick 04:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Through the tone of your responses, I labeled you (Morgan) and Firsfron as "CoolKatt supporters", and perhaps I was a bit hasty in that pronouncement. But that was the POV I took initially. I'm not asking you to support me completely, but just to also see things from my POV, and I hope you stay neutral. And I know I haven't been completely clean during my time here, and I'm being honest in admitting that. But, I think I have been better than most others.

BTW, CK should be filing a RfC against me in the coming days. Stay tuned. Rollosmokes 05:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Couple more comments. Read WP:DR very carefully. Also, reverting exactly three times in 24 hours is not itself against the rules, but doing it repeatedly goes against the spirit of 3RR and can itself be a blockable offense. Morgan Wick 02:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry it's had to come to this.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollosmokes CoolKatt number 99999 06:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

(sarcastically) I'm shaking in my boots. Oh boy, I'm really scared now. Rollosmokes 06:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That RfC has been deleted, what discussion was left has been moved here, and I have nominated the remaining talk page for speedy deletion. Irrelevant RfC soon forgotten. AlexDW 14:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blueboy weighs in

After seeing all of Coolkatt's ridiculous subpages, I endorsed CFIF's take on this whole affair. Blueboy96 17:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

In my opinion, this whole mess is getting to be very annoying. Both of the users involved in this dispute are violating WP:3RR and WP:NOT, over and over again. WP:TVS has yet to reach a consensus on the main issue involved here (out of market stations), yet these users are fighting the issue out via an edit war. Wait for a resolution, then we will fix the relevant pages. AlexDW 17:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Also:

• "Continuous reverting of my edits, he should know they are useful." You haven't sufficiently explained why. Also, they are only useful if there is a consensus they are useful. Such edits are not useful if the matter they deal with is being discussed to determine if they are useful.
• "Insists on using UPN's full name which is not used anymore" Please. First of all, that's WP:LAME material. Second of all, I think he gave up that ghost a while ago.
• WP:OWN applies to you more than to him. Morgan Wick 02:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to the comment left on my talk page

Mediation. Definitely. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coolkatt-written article nominated for deletion

Thought you'd like to know that one of Coolkatt's articles, The Great Network Switch, has been nominated for deletion. Check the July 22 log.

I originally wasn't going to support it, but after finding only 13 hits for "Great Network Switch" on Yahoo (not counting Wikipedia hits), I had to support the deletion. Blueboy96 13:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)