User talk:They call me Mr. Pibb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, They call me Mr. Pibb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Sr13 (T|C) ^{Editor review} 08:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Metromedia 1.1 Don't start this up again 2 Blocked 3 Wiki Guideline on Dead Links 4 Problems with User:Rollosmokes again 5 Edit wars

[edit] Metromedia

You've been making redundant changes to this article, including adding -AM and -FM suffixes to the radio station chart where they don't belong. Please stop changing this. Rollosmokes 05:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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.

First of all, AM radio stations have never officially used the -AM suffix after their call signs. Some FM stations do, and others do not. The call letters should ba written accurately. So (for example) WNEW radio should be just WNEW, NOT WNEW-AM; and WMMS and WASH don't use the -FM suffix currently, though they may have at one time.

Everything else is just a matter of words, and there are other similar charts that are formatted in the same manner. The format here was fine for months until you felt the need to fix what wasn't broken, so I've reverted back completely. Rollosmokes 18:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You obviously didn't take my opinion into consideration, as you reverted back to your incorrect version. I have undid the changes again, and will look for administrator assistance if this article is changed by you once more. Rollosmokes 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Check your facts: I did not violate the three-revert rule, because I didn't revert Metromedia three times in 24 hours. You can go to mediation all you want to, but I'm still going to an administrator (I have contacted Firsfron, so you'll be hearing from him very soon). BTW, I reverted back. Rollosmokes 06:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't start this up again

Unless you want to get administration involved once more, stop making the nitpicky changes to the Metromedia article, as you have been doing for the past two days. I promise you that every time you revert to your changes, I will undo them. They aren't necessary, and as I have stated before, the article was FINE before you decided to FIX WHAT WASN'T BROKEN. Rollosmokes 07:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

They call me Mr. Pibb has an EXTREMELY valid point :-) (in regards to the whole "owned by" debate. I find it extremely ridiculous to put owned by in the column that says owner Jorobeq 08:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy f*cking shit! Finally someone who agrees with me about my edits, I wish User:Rollosmokes would get this though his thick head that my edits are not disruptive. Thank you so much Jorobeq for pointing out and agreeing with me that User:Rollosmokes is WRONG!. They call me Mr. Pibb 08:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you insist on making these needless and redundant changes to the article (and are trying to prove a point by doing so), I have once again asked Firsfron to interject. I am also requesting that the Metromedia article be locked and protected from editing until this crap dies down. Rollosmokes 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, and as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is the unblock template you use if you wish to contest a block (you have to fill out your reason). Please do not edit under an IP while you are blocked, and certainly do not continue to edit war, as you did here. Any administrator who sees you are continuing the edit war while blocked will probably not unblock you. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 18:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki Guideline on Dead Links

WP:CITE is very specific about this: "When a link in the References section or Notes section (a link to a source for information in the article) "goes dead", it should be repaired or replaced if possible, but not deleted." The guideline then provides a list of strategies on where to look to find replacements. And even if those strategies fail, WP:CITE specifically states:

If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. When printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced.

Tendancer 19:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with User:Rollosmokes again

This thread originally posted to my talk, reproducing here for transparency. Please continue here if necessary, not on my talk. Thanks. Sandstein 21:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I just got a new and what I consider a very aggressive post on my talk page from User:Rollosmokes stating "Since you insist on making these needless and redundant changes to the article (and are trying to prove a point by doing so), I have once again asked Firsfron to interject. I am also requesting that the Metromedia article be locked and protected from editing until this crap dies down.". Apparently he waited until his temporary ban was over to start harassing me on my talk page again, I want to make clear that as of this post and prior to (except when I was advising him that I had requested mediation of the Metromedia article) and during his temporary ban I made no contact with him whatsoever. If you read my talk page you will clearly see that I made my point of why I made the edits to Metromedia and in fact one other Wikipedian agrees with me that my edits are warranted to remove what we both consider redundant information in the article. I would like to formally request that some action be taken, possibly another temporary ban until User:Rollosmokes learns to play nice with other Wikipedians. Thank you for your time. They call me Mr. Pibb 08:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on what you expect me to do and why exactly. I'm not up to date on this dispute but I note that you as well have made an incivil edit. Please calm down and do not make personal attacks. Sandstein 15:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I did no such thing, I did not make a personal attack it was User:Rollosmokes that made the remarks in my talk page saying "Until this crap calms down" I never instigated him, I simply made edits that I thought were appropriate and User:Rollosmokes started an edit war in Metromedia, I think it is appropriate that he have another temporary 24 hour edit banned again until he can learn to play nicely with other Wikipedia users. They call me Mr. Pibb 17:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. That edit of yours was incivil. In the future, please do not make derogatory comments about fellow editors, but just report obvious misbehaviour to WP:AIV or to an admin such as I. Rollosmokes is blocked 48h for editwarring. Sandstein 21:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a derogatory comment, To be honest I was simply expressing myself (On my own talkpage mind you) to the fact that I was finally relieved to find that another Wikipedian is agreeing with me that User:Rollosmokes was wrong in his idiology that the one part of the Metromedia article was fine as written because clearly it isn't. Putting Owned by next to the owners name in a category that clear states CURRENT OWNERSHIP is extremely redundant. They call me Mr. Pibb 10:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit wars

Hi Mr. Pibb,

I honestly think you should take a more "Zen" approach to this situation (and all edit conflicts on Wikipedia). You've gotten yourself so worked up that you've even accused others not involved in the dispute of "conducting unauthorized and unwarranted blocks of my user account because of [their] relationship with Rollosmokes." You've resorted to personal attacks (the "thick-headed" comment, above) while denying you ever did so, you've reported Rollosmokes on WP:AN/I, being sure to mention he's been blocked and the block request was denied, while failing to mention the same thing happened to you.

Mr. Pibb, I appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia. At the same time, in less than a month, you've been blocked for edit warring, opened up a mediation case, stated your case on the admin's noticeboard and on two administrators' talk pages, left some aggressive notes on talk pages, edited the disputed article while you were supposed to be blocked, etc, etc. This aggressive behavior is not in line with the idea of collaborative editing. We all get upset, and we all want what's best for the encyclopedia. What's best for the encyclopedia isn't a huge edit war which envelops several articles in project space, a half-dozen talk pages, the administrators' noticebaord, etc.

I do not agree with Rollosmokes' aggressive messages toward you; I have asked him in the past to tone down his messages; many instances of this can be found in his talk page archives. At the same time, your own behavior has been just as bad (please do not respond to this note with examples where your behavior has been better). Please, let this edit war go and just go back to editing the encyclopedia. You, I, and hopefully everyone else, can get back to doing what what we're here for: improving the encyclopedia.

Letting this edit war go may not improve Wikipedia's article on Metromedia, an interesting company with a long, 30+ year history. But there are thousands of other articles which need to be improved, and could be improved, but aren't because of an edit war which has now lasted weeks. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)