User talk:Jerry Pepsi

Columns in the reference section

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How do I make the reference section of an article split into two columns? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{Reflist|2}} to make two columns. Technical 13 (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}} is better, as it's more flexible on narrow window devices, such as mobiles. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of 1970s American television episodes with LGBT themes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dallas (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Only warning, Jerry Pepsi: let's have no more of these personal insults, or I will have to block you. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Your recent editing history at List of 1970s American television episodes with LGBT themes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. SummerPhD (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. If you revert again without discussing the issue first, you will be blocked again. Keep in mind that another block for edit warring will likely be substantially longer. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Really? The IP editor who HAS SAID NOTHING to support adding trivia reverts again and I'M the one you threaten? What the hell? I have said time and again why the episodes should not be added to the list, in edit summaries and on the talk page. And I'm the one you threaten. What crap. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the 3RR warning, you had said nothing on the article's talk page. As of this moment, you've said nothing on the IP's talk page. I don't see where you've discussed it on your talk page either (I'm unwilling to dig through being called a "cunt" and a "pissy little bitch" to try to find it). Where was this discussion?

I gave the IP this warning the same time I gave you the same warning. When I reverted their last change without discussion, I immediately took them to 3RR.

Incidentally, I was tempted to take you there when you reverted without waiting for discussion. That's really bad form when you're under a 3RR warning, especially so shortly after a 3RR block. Slow down. There's no deadline here. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea I had been left any messages. I rarely review my talk page. My post to the article's talk page had nothing to do with this discussion or any other. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You ignore your talk page at your own risk. In any case, you cannot repeatedly revert without discussing the issue on the article's talk page. Hopefully that is clear. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Pepsi, I'm letting you know, as an administrator, that the next time you exhibit edit-warring and/or harassing behavior you can and likely will be blocked indefinitely. If you remove a category or make some other change, and you get reverted, rather than reverting back (which is initiating an edit war by definition) bring the discussion to either the article talk page or the user talk page of the person who reverted you. Don't talk in all caps (that's considered yelling on the internet), don't sling out insults like "cunt" or "bitch" or anything else that personally denigrates the other editor. Discuss the issue calmly and rationally, and if you can't come to an agreement try the methods at our dispute resolution policy to resolve the disagreement. These are standards of behavior that all editors have to follow, and if you don't, you will no longer be allowed to edit this encyclopedia. -- Atama頭 18:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Super Mario Man ( talk ) 00:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the sock of an indef blocked user...

...you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. For this reason I have reverted all of your outstanding edits. BMK (talk) 07:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're a liar and your actions are based on lies. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that turns out not to be the case.

:Incidentally, the ban against your editing is true regardless of the value or accuracy of your edits. As an indef blocked user, you simply cannot edit here at all. BMK (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lying liar who lies. I won't revert your petty edits on talk pages that are designed to engender discussion to improve articles because undoubtedly you will use them against me to further your lying lies. Regardless, you are a liar. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert any of your edits which I have deleted. Even if your edit was of some value, another editor will come along to make it eventually. It simply cannot be you. BMK (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And here we have the definition of a martinet. Better to include wrong information because he believes the right information was added wrongly. Pathetic. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You really should have thought about the downside before you started socking way back when, Otto. BMK (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea who you're referring to, but reinserting errors out of your personal vendetta is disgusting. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, you really have to get it into you head that we are not stupid, that we identify you (eventually) when you sock, and that, as much as is possible, any edits you make while you sock will be removed from the encyclopedia. If you understand those facts, then you will surely come to the conclusion that you are not helping the LGBT cause by behaving so disruptively, since your effect on the project is minimized. Your next sock is unlikely to be as successful as this one was, since you've really had generally very poor results. I would say that you're really not very good at it -- which is why I'm urging you to do something for the cause you believe that will truly be helpful to it, as what you're doing here is just totally ineffective. BMK (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no idea what you're talking about. You seem to have some interest in documenting the LGBT experience. As such, it seems unlikely that removing valid sourced information about that experience based on harping to some arbitrary set of rules would advance that interest. Even if it did, removing sourced information based on who added it seems counter-intuitive. Deleting sourced information based on "the guy who added it, we don't like" is not productive to the cause. Verifying it independently based on the provided sources seems much better than deleting it out of what seems like spite. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just trying to help you out, and help us out as well. We always catch you, Otto, but it would a bit easier for us if you just stopped and went away. Obviously, you don't want to do that. Apparently, you want to continue to pretend that you're not who we both know you are. It's a shallow pretense which, at this point, is fooling absolutely nobody. Your behavior, even in this discussion where you continue to pretend, is not that of a wrongly accused innocent person, it's the behavior of someone with a POV to push who is trying desperately trying to keep some of the edits they made from being deleted. Your performance is not at all believable.

But, as I said, just trying to give you an out, to redirect you into something more productive, but you're clearly going to keep cloaked instead. BMK (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ Jesus. you're an idiot. You've decided based on such compelling evidence as "they use two names" who I am. Regardless, you're reverting bad information for no other reason than I added good information. Go ahead, go through my whole edit history. But stop changing things back because Imade the changes and base you decisions on reliable sources. Oops. can't be bothered to do that, you have a witch hunt to conduct. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have I mentioned that as the sockpuppet of an indef blocked user you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia, whether those edits are helpful or not. Your editing -- any editing -- is not wanted. I am reverting your edits, please do not restore them. Any other editor who is in good standing is welcome to restore those they think are helpful. BMK (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have I mentioned that as the sockpuppet of an indef blocked user you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia, whether those edits are helpful or not. I am reverting your edits, please do not restore them. BMK (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have I mentioned that even mentioned that you are completely wrong that edits that improve Wikipedia are preferable to douchebag martinets who would rather further their agendas than assure that the project only presents factual information and not articles? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BMK (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Edit warrior seeking to abuse the system to mask his edit vendetta. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't post anything more to BMK's page. See WP:BLANKING. Then see WP:HARASSMENT. Stop posting to his page. Doc talk 09:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So a crazy person who is systematically going through my entire edit history and undoing things he doesn't LIKE is free and clear but my suggestion that the crazy person stop what he's doing warrants a threat? Good looking out, Wikipedia. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]