You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on
my talk page.
We're so glad you're here! --
Actowne 02:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Georgia-media-stub
Hi - I've just speedy-deleted Georgia-media-stub. There is no need for another geography stub template (we already have {{
geo-stub}}), and the name you chose for it was so inappropriate that it was bordeing on nonsense. If what you were intending was a stub about Georgia media, then you would have been better off going through the standard procedures and proposing it at
WP:WSS/P (which is where new stub types are debated prior to creation). To be honest, though, given that it would not be likely to fit in with the hierarchy of stub types, I doubt it will gain much support.
Grutness...wha? 00:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Regarding Stubs
Will you pleas stop marking articles as stubs that are not stubs. Several articles regarding stations in New York and in Philadelphia you have marked as stubs which provide enough content and context toreaders as not to present the articles as stube. You might want to look at
WP:Stub, regarding the stubbing of pages. --
Boothy443 |
trácht ar 06:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Commas
Hey man, your deletion of commas in the Nashville TV articles are unnecessary. Commas are there for a reason. Please visit a second grade class and learn the rules of grammar before you delete commas. --
Zpb52 06:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Stub templates
Please do not add any stub templates to any Wikipedia articles that are larger than 10 sentences. You can read
Wikipedia:Stub to learn more about the stub templates and why they are used. They are only for short articles. Articles such as
KNBC and
WFTC are too large to have stub templates added to them.
BlankVerse 10:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Once again, do not place stubs on long articles and for that matter, do not place categories where they are unnecessary. I have reverted some of your recent edits, and I hope that you pay attention to what is said by others in the edit summaries, otherwise, your edits will continue to be reverted. We're only trying to help you, so please pay attention, otherwise, you will continued to be labeled as someone who doesn't pay attention to what others say.
ErikNY 20:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)reply
And you still haven't paid attention (re:
WLVT-TV). Guess I'm right.
ErikNY 20:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Hi Ben. We appreciate your enthusiasm, but your recent edits to
Squares weren't so good.
The correct term for a syndicated TV show is "in syndication", not "on syndicated." Your term implies a channel named Syndicated. I've changed this twice and hope you'll understand why.
Also, please don't unneccesarily wikify dates (that is a practice that is being discouraged on Wikipedia and only serves to distract), and leave ordinal numbers (first, second, third, et al.) spelled out rather than turning them into numbers.
I've noticed your additions and/or edits are sloppy, poorly worded, and in most cases, redundant and innacurate. This counts as vandalism.
For example,
WDCA-TV in Washington is not a "flagship" station of UPN. It was, when it was owned by Viacom/CBS, but is no longer since it was sold to Fox/News Corp. in 2002. You also reworded several portions of
WTXX,
WCTX, and
WTNH-TV that were unnecessary and redundant, as I may have noted in my comments when I reverted and editied those entries.
Please stop vandalizing these articles.
Rollosmokes 23:16, 21 March 2006
(UTC)
UPDATE: You have vandalized more television articles, specifically
WATL and
WBDC, and I have corrected your changes once again. If you keep doing this, I will fix you every time.
Rollosmokes 07:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)reply
TVQ & FMQ
The {{
TVQ}} and {{
FMQ}} templates expect the simple
call letters (i.e. {{
TVQ|WFYI}} not {{
TVQ|WFYI-TV}}). These templates generate a
url for querying the
FCC database, and will generate an invalid url if not fed the simple call letters. --
rogerd 04:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been
reverted or removed. Please use
the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the
welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --
Boothy443 |
trácht ar 03:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Recent edits
Well, it seems you have yet again made edits to broadcasting articles and making edits that don't always make sense. I have reverted you on several of these edits, and others have done the same on some of your other edits. Please do not make these edits again, as you have been warned in the past. --WCQuidditch☎✎ 00:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. -
Whomp 22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)reply
TV Station articles
Ben-
I have noticed you have made many edits to TV station articles. On behalf of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations, I request that you refrain from editing TV station articles at all. Your edits are mostly false and unconstructive. --
CFIF(talk to me) 23:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Will you go away and stop making these awful edits? --
CFIF(talk to me) 19:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)reply
You have been
blocked from editing for 24 hours in accordance with
Wikipedia's blocking policy on disruption. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to do so after the block expires. Shell babelfish 22:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Please contact me
Ben,
Please stop making the changes to the TV stations until you talk to either myself or another admin. Some of your edits are being viewed as inappropriate, and I would like to discuss them with you. You seem to have a good understanding of the technical side of wikipedia, and I would hate to see you get banned before having an opportunity to smooth over the rough edges.
Sue Anne 00:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Why Even Bother?
For the last several months, I have corrected or just plain reverted your TV articles. Lots of edits that you have made are totally useless, sometimes false. You use grammar and spelling at an early elementary school level. We tell you how to do things right, even stop, but you refuse to listen to us.
We are watching you like a hawk -- anything you change, we will correct or change back. While Wiki can be edited by anyone, this is an encyclopedia, so some sort of professionalism is expected. --
azumanga 00:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
BenH, you are starting to really get on my nerves. That first block did not do a thing to stop you. I think a permablock should keep you at bay.
CoolKatt number 99999 03:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Once again, Ben does it again, taking stations in three markets and trashing them with his nonsense. Even poor Nipsey Russell was a victim. He never listens to us. I doubt he even reads this talk page. Whoever bans Ben will be a hero.
azumanga 23:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)reply
CFIF, You should've also added
this -- the
WLTV page when he first created it. Hope your efforts gives Benny the boot.
azumanga 01:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)reply
(please endorse my summary there if you agree with it) --
CFIF(talk to me) 01:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I am terribly sorry I have to say this, but I'm afraid I agree with everything that has been said. By the way, I note you have just edited
WITF-TV, indicating that, alas, you have not stopped. Again, I am sorry I had to say this, but it's the only thing I can tell you. --WCQuidditch☎✎ 01:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)reply
And he still hasn't stopped -- as of 10:20PM 6/25, he's now mangling the Hampton Roads stations. I wonder if he's doing this because we're watching him? If so, he's just playing with fire. And Benny -- if you're reading this, stop now or you're done.
azumanga 02:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Each edit you make, Ben, has the chance of making more evidence against you. --
CFIF(talk to me) 02:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Well, he's seemed to have stopped... for now, at least. —
Whomp[
T] [
C 02:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)reply
You're getting on my nerves BenH, stop right now!!!!
CoolKatt number 99999 03:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)reply
He's in Columbia now. He needs to be stopped.
azumanga 18:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)reply
I've reversed everything he did this time around -- get a load of
WOLO-TV("ABC Columbia" is "NBC 25") and
WZRB (the "RB", according to Benny, means "RoBerts", not "Roberts Broadcasting"; also, per him, CW is still a go on 9/4 (it's now 9/18)). How soon until he's banned?
I also noticed that Benny has yet to give his side of the story on the RfC page. Personally, his silence over all of this is proof that he's guilty. Benny, if you have anything to say about this, now is the time. (P.S. -- I made the reversals of thye Columbia stations -- I forgot to sign my message.)
azumanga 00:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Another common Benism that I've noticed is that Fox launched in 1987. —
Whomp[
T] [
C 22:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Also, according to Benny,
NET started in 1962, not 1952 (as NET's srticle states); prior to 1962, all ETV stations were "educational independents", and they must be accepted into NET and PBS. And, all network affiliates use the network name and channel number as branding, and all O&Os are flagships, not just the ones where the networks are based in.
azumanga 03:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)reply
RfC
If you make any more edits without engaging on Talk pages or responding to the RfC then I will block you for disruption. You cannot fail to be aware that what you are doing is not appreciated.
Just zis Guy you know? 15:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)reply
You have been
blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against disruption. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from
this list. Note to
sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator.Just zis Guy you know? 09:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)reply
I Want to be Unblocked from WIKIPEDIA (69. 68.95.195)
This
blocked user (block log) asked to be unblocked. The reason given was: . JzG has reviewed this request and declined to unblock the account. The reason for declining was: Disruption. Will unblock when he engages in debate Administrators: you may also review this block, and
unblock (unblock link) this user.; see
blocking policy. Blocked editor: your unblock request continues to be visible. Please don't replace this message with another unblock request. Thank you.
I Want to Apologize for the unfair Violation you put up to block me for life and I'm unable to understand the information of TV Stations in the United States. JzG, Don't Be mean & strict to me and please get rid of the Blocked Pages and let me continue user WIKIPEDIA forever. Now please give a chance to use WIKIPEDIA to fix the errors and let use it again as your user.
BenH.
Hi, please E-mail your blocking administrator if you want to be unblocked. Thanks,
Pilotguy(roger that) 17:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
BenH, you comment above is barely coherent. Are you saying that you would now be prepared to participate in the request for comment, and that you will not edit any other articles until that process is complete? And that you will respect consensus? Absent these assurances, you stay blocked.
Just zis Guy you know? 18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
And you wonder why the admins banned you? Look at your incoherent sentence, it looks like you put it through BabelFish. --
CFIF(talk to me) 21:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Let me translate:
I Want to apologize for what I did to get blocked. I'm unable to understand the information of TV stations in the United States. JzG, don't be mean and strict to me, and please unblock me, and let me continue to use WIKIPEDIA. Now please give me a chance to use WIKIPEDIA to fix the errors.
Ben, Fixing the errors is not necessary, that has been done. What I need is a categorical assurance that you will, if unblocked, leave the articles alone, start by discussing on Talk pages, and in particular, take part in the RfC. Once I have those assurances I will unblock you.
Just zis Guy you know? 21:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)reply
fixed unblock template. If anything
User:JzG should reduce the block since justifying indef blocks usually lead to block evasion.
Indefinite does not mean permanent, it just means until Ben shows willingness to work in a properly collaborative manner. As soon as he gives that assurance, in an unambigous way, he can be unblocked.
Just zis Guy you know? 15:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Has anyone considered that the user might have some sort of mental disability? He hasn't said anything in his defense along those lines (in fact hasn't said anything much at all), but if true it's unfortunate, but either way the block must stay.
Danski14 01:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)reply
Community ban?
It appears obvious that BenH has no intention of debating ... a suspected sock of his was active as late as March 20. This calls for a community ban. It seems like one's already in place--but just in case, I proposed one at
WP:CN.
Blueboy96 18:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)reply
A response statement
Go ahead and post a defense here. People who read the community ban proposal can weigh it when they make up their minds.
DurovaCharge! 05:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Don't unblock this user!
This user blocked my IP! Don't unblock him!!! --
NewYorkCity101 (
talk) 22:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)reply
You're trying to restart a conversation that ended two years ago on a user nobody has any plans to unblock in this eon? Please, knock it off. Nate•(
chatter) 04:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)reply
