Yes, TBrandley, you also know, more than many, that I especially do a lot to help and support our younger editors, but even when I was a school teacher, I occasionally had to send some of my favourite students out of the room. I do indeed have a reputation on Wikipedia for being sometimes blunt and strict, but always fair. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 04:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, TBrandley, you also know, more than many, that I especially do a lot to help and support our younger editors, but even when I was a school teacher, I occasionally had to send some of my favourite students out of the room. I do indeed have a reputation on Wikipedia for being sometimes blunt and strict, but always fair. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 04:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
:Yeah, I did violate so yeah you do certainly did make the right choice now that I think about it further. Just a little bit strict I suppose. Sorry. Your a good editor and admin [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]]! I used to break rules all the time, since I didn't understand any of the rules, seriously any of them at all. This block is only minor, and short, so it doesn't really matter much. Sorry again for the above comments regarding your comments about me. Cheers, <font face="Impact">[[User:TBrandley#top|TBr]][[User talk:TBrandley#top|and]][[Special:Contributions/TBrandley|ley]]</font> 00:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
:Yeah, I did violate so yeah you do certainly did make the right choice now that I think about it further. Just a little bit strict I suppose. Sorry. Your a good editor and admin [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung]]! I used to break rules all the time, since I didn't understand any of the rules, seriously any of them at all. This block is only minor, and short, so it doesn't really matter much. Sorry again for the above comments regarding your comments about me. Cheers, <font face="Impact">[[User:TBrandley#top|TBr]][[User talk:TBrandley#top|and]][[Special:Contributions/TBrandley|ley]]</font> 00:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please note at the categories for discussion for [[:Category:WikiProject Awake]] that "Awake task force" has been changed to "WikiProject Awake" and that their is a separate template for that. It should be all merged to "WikiProject Awake" not "Awake task force". Thank you. <font face="Impact">[[User:TBrandley#top|TBr]][[User talk:TBrandley#top|and]][[Special:Contributions/TBrandley|ley]]</font> 01:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
== Category:WikiProject Awake ==
== Category:WikiProject Awake ==
Revision as of 01:21, 29 September 2012
Because of school, TBrandley might not be very active on weekdays, but, may be editing when he is not at school. But, if he has any major exams or homework he may be in-active. He will most likely be back editing voraciously on weekends.
If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
This editor is a Grognard and is entitled to display this Wikipedia Little Red Book.
This editor is a Journeyman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.
Fox program list
While I can appreciate the work you put in, you have to understand that that all these network programming list articles are supposed to be just nuts and bolts lists. They don't need all the extra stuff on top of it. All the pictures and whatnot added on aren't necessary for what this article is supposed to be, and that's merely a list of programs.
That is the single stupidest thing I've ever heard an editor here say. Why is Hamlet a featured article but The Merry Wives of Windsor isn't? Editors are free to work on whatever content they so desire. Your actions, Vjmlhds, are utterly disruptive. I'll be bringing you to WP:ANEW for gross violation of the 3-revert rule if you blank the article again; you've already violated it enough to warrant a block as is. GRAPPLEX01:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fox programs
Tate, this edit was inappropriate. I'm not saying the actual edit was bad, but the matter in which you performed it was. Rollback should never be used to edit war; it should only be used on clear-cut cases of vandalism. If the edit war escalates, and an admin sees that you used rollback, your rollback rights will probably be revoked. Be careful, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good, it would suck for you to lose those rights! Also, this is gonna be a busy week for you. With GA returning, there's gonna be a lot of unwanted content/vandalism hitting the GA articles. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, PP premieres tomorrow night. My MacBook charger broke yesterday, so I've had to use some old Dell. I absolutely hate Windows computers, so I won't be doing any article development this week. However, I ordered a new charger, and it should be here by the weekend. Also, thanks for promoting Yang. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That makes two of us. I always use a Windows, but then again, I got used to it. :( Mac's are awesome. A friend of mine said that suck. Wow; where does he get this stuff lol. Your welcome for the promotion. TBrandley00:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I noticed you always forget to update the project classes on an article's talk page when promoting an article to GA. Always do this, or the article won't be classified as good on the project pages. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of the article; that final ref could really do with being split out into several individual page cites rather than a 500+ page range. Even splitting it by chapters (if there are chapters) and using the range for each of those would be better; with a range that large you're essentially just citing the whole book at once. However, brave choice; it's an unusual but interesting topic to handle. I believe there's some good material out there on how the mid-to-early 90s really saw the channel taking off under the success of The Simpsons and The X-Files if you want to further augment the prose. GRAPPLEX01:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About the book source, I don't really understand what to really do regarding that. I do however have information about The Simpsons gave the channel success, but not The X-Files, I'll look. Thanks! TBrandley01:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well currently you have nearly 40 cites to "Brooks, Tim & Marsh, Earle (2007). The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows (9th ed.). New York: Ballantine. pp 1-1566." (I now see it's one thousand five hundred pages, not just five hundred). Each of those individual cites could point to a specific page or small page range using {{sfn}}, otherwise it's not really helpful to include that page range at all. For instance, your first ref might be "Brooks & Marsh 2007, p. 67", the next might be "Brooks & Marsh 2007, pp. 101–106", etc. That'll make it much easier for each reference to be verified if someone wants to check it in the book. GRAPPLEX01:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Honestly, actually, when I started working on this list (about even one and a half weeks ago), that book source was already there. I don't know which page or anything about that or the page. Perhaps I'll try contacting the person who added those book sources in the first place. Cheers, TBrandley02:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might be available to preview on Google books or Amazon. You don't even need to be able to fully read it; searching for a programme's title will show you which page it's mentioned on, which is really all you need for all it's being used for. GRAPPLEX02:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are still interested, I'd welcome more of your comments and/or opinions on the FA nomination of Folding@home. It looks like we are now waiting on a review from Emw, but in the meantime I could use your opinions if there's more that you have to say under your section. Thanks! • Jesse V.(talk)22:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would have supported, but then I figured I would wait for Emw (I'm not very knowledge in that article's subject). I'll try to take a look. Cheers, TBrandley23:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. That was just flat out ridiculous. You've been here a long time, you know the rules--it doesn't matter if you are right, you MUST NOT edit war. I've blocked the other editor as well. When you come back, talk about the issue on the article's talk page. If you can't agree, user dispute resolution. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I believe I should be unblocked. Yes, I do know the rules, I have been here awhile, I have violated WP:3RR; sorry. But despite this, I personally believe those revert edits that was very much reverted was constituted as vandalism. It had reliable sources, and he removed details, that was not uncontroversial to the subject, or article in any way. The other editor didn't like that article had been improved, unlike others, such as the CBS program list, as well as all others, expect for the Fox one which I had expanded. That same editor blanked the page List of The X-Files episodes, which is a featured list, and he didn't explain for that at all! I believe that both constitutes bad faith, despite the assuming good faith guideline. Sorry, but I believe that a block is a little harsh. Sorry again. Just a note, the issue in hand have been resolved as of yesterday. I promise to go by WP:BRD from now.
Decline reason:
For such an extreme case of edit warring, I would expect a very compelling explanation. "They were vandalizing" would in fact be a valid reason, if only it were true. I would suggest you review WP:VANDAL and re-evaluate that position. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I'm sorry, but I am human. I made a mistake. Also see the above request that I made.
Decline reason:
Your block is for a blatant case of edit warring. I've just spent an hour and a half going through your entire editing history and it's clear that although you claim you know the rules you are just not able to stick to them. Primarily, there is a maturity issue here, and if this block were a lot longer I still wouldn't consider shortening it until you can demonstrate that you can edit with responsibility and understand that Wikipedia, its GAs, and its FAs are not some kind of game. This current block is very short and you can weather it out, but in your short time here you have managed to repeatedly break just about every rule in the book so be aware that if you step out of line just once more, there can be no 'Sorry, I forgot' type of excuses and you're going to be blocked for a very long time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I don't know if it helps but I fully support this request, TBrandley has only ever been an enthusiastic creator and reviewer of quality content and isn't a liability in the slightest to the project; I have already expressed my belief at the relevant WP:ANEW threat that his reverts were simply fighting vandalism. GRAPPLEX23:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, how sweet of you to get a few supportive comments confused with "fan club" mail. I cant speak for Grapple, but I for one do not consider myself as a member of a "fan club" of anybody's. These are a few supportive comments that balance out the negativity that being blocked generates. Incidentally, I am so pleased you were there to point out this isn't a "fan club voting page"...phew! -- CassiantoTalk12:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually appreciated these above comments for me. Yes, you decide since your an admin, but there's nothing wrong with any supportive comments. Regards, TBrandley23:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was in a dispute with Vjmlhds recently, and when I saw he was blocked, I found you. You seem to be a dedicated editor, so I have some advice. I've been a few of these "person trying to improve a page vs. person trying to maintain status quo arguments" and it can be incredibly frustrating. I understand why you reverted the other guy so many times - when you work hard on a page, it can be quite upsetting to see your hard work immediately reverted by someone else. I've encountered Vjmlhds many times and quite frankly I'm amazed he's only been blocked twice. He falls under the category of "revert first, come up with a reason why later." But, you did go far above and beyond 3RR. You simply have to sit it out. My main point is that you shouldn't let this get you down. I've seen some great editors get slapped with a block, which pretty much kills their enthusiasm for wikipedia. And in this case, the admins are being quite harsh to you (not with the block, but with their words). I hope once this block ends that you don't lose your enthusiasm for editing. -- Scorpion042217:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the admins' latest comments by Kudpung, including "but in your short time here you have managed to repeatedly break just about every rule in the book so be aware that if you step out of line just once more" you know, that was my past. I don't know if you noticed that my last block was way back in April 2012. Since then, I have been trying to become a better editor, and forget my past. Your making that hard. "its GAs, and its FAs are not some kind of game" I know that. I mean, sure, I look getting articles up to GA, FA, etc., everyone does, but I don't believe it is a game, I'm also helping Wikipedia! Again, I am hoping that my edits are getting better. Sorry, but your comments really hurt, and come off as insulting, especially the first one I noted, as well as others though. Regards, TBrandley23:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it too much, the admin is just trying to scare you. I'm sure he didn't mean it this way, but you should take it as a challenge: Improve yourself and your abilities and show him what kind of editor you can be. Some of the best users I know started out with vandal tendencies and have broken "just about every rule in the book". And, in my experience, 90% of admins are jerks (particularly those that try to scare away content editors), so don't let it get to you. -- Scorpion042202:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm sure the admin is being a little bit strict so that these very block or issue doesn't happen again. I'm sure too. Thanks for your input. TBrandley00:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, TBrandley, you also know, more than many, that I especially do a lot to help and support our younger editors, but even when I was a school teacher, I occasionally had to send some of my favourite students out of the room. I do indeed have a reputation on Wikipedia for being sometimes blunt and strict, but always fair. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did violate so yeah you do certainly did make the right choice now that I think about it further. Just a little bit strict I suppose. Sorry. Your a good editor and admin Kudpung! I used to break rules all the time, since I didn't understand any of the rules, seriously any of them at all. This block is only minor, and short, so it doesn't really matter much. Sorry again for the above comments regarding your comments about me. Cheers, TBrandley00:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please note at the categories for discussion for Category:WikiProject Awake that "Awake task force" has been changed to "WikiProject Awake" and that their is a separate template for that. It should be all merged to "WikiProject Awake" not "Awake task force". Thank you. TBrandley01:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
