User talk:Rollosmokes

Talk Page Archive #1 covers topics discussed between January 20 and June 11, 2006.

Talk Page Archive #2 covers topics discussed between June 12 and September 8, 2006.

Talk Page Archive #3 covers topics discussed between September 9 and December 1, 2006.

Talk Page Archive #4 covers topics discussed between December 2, 2006, and February 20, 2007.

Talk Page Archive #5 covers topics discussed between February 21 and April 30, 2007.

Talk Page Archive #6 covers topics discussed between May 1 and June 14, 2007.

Talk Page Archive #7 covers topics discussed between June 15 and December 3, 2007.

Talk Page Archive #8 covers topics discussed between December 4, 2007, and May 7, 2008.

Talk Page Archive #9 covers topics discussed between May 7 and July 7, 2008.

I'm taking a break

Beware of Wiki-vultures. They will pick and pick at you until there's nothing left but bones.

Over my time here, I feel that I have made constructive contributions to this endeavor. I also feel that I have been professional at all times, and I have offered work that is both factual and well-written. I will admit (and others may say) that I have been too agressive at times, and that's fine. I have my style, and it has mostly worked for me and I have no plans of altering it. And I have maintained civility towards other editors with whom I have had conflicts. Having said that, the events of the past several weeks have bothered me.

I have been unfairly labeled as a "bully" by an oversensitive editor and IP abuser who, I feel, was more interested in pushing his point of view. I explained that our issues were content-related and not personal, but this person labeled me as a vandal and then cried so loud that he convinced his sympathizers that I was in the wrong.

Then there is another editor who also was interested more in pushing a singular POV instead of discussing proposed changes with other editors, and I led the way in stopping him cold. This person has refrained from using his registered username since then and is utilizing an unregistered IP address to mostly slam me every chance he gets. And, it appears he's doing a decent job of it, which leads me to my next point.

Currently, I am being tagged as a disruptive editor by several others who do not share my view on what is correct use of grammar. I have offered sources to back up my claim, but it has been ignored by those who have chosen to gang up against me. I can say a lot of things about these vultures -- Baseball Bugs, TheRealFennShysa, and TV9 specifically -- but I'll save them for another time.

For this reason, I'm taking a break from this place. I do have a life outside of Wikipedia, and I'm going to enjoy more of it. However, I am not raising the white flag on what I believe is right when it comes to the latter issue. I am correct on this -- and I will prove it all to you when I return.

Rollosmokes (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Rest up, Rollo. You're a passionate editor and that will drain the energy right out of you. You've been a valuable asset to the project and I'm sure you'll continue to be. We'll see you when you get back. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to your return. Have a good break. Kingturtle (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rollo,

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I sure hope you do enjoy the rest of your summer. Regroup and refocus. Come back to Wikipedia refreshed and ready to collaborate again. But do take some time off: there is no reason to stress over something which is supposed to be a hobby. Good luck, take care, and see you (hopefully) this fall. I've enjoyed working with you. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

You appear to be uninterested in collaborative & consensual article editing, are not prepared to discuss matters to resolve difficulties, use offensive terminology with regard to editors you are in dispute with, and are otherwise prepared to disrupt the encyclopedia to maintain your preferred versions of articles. I have therefore blocked you indefinitely. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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).

Rollosmokes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Articles in the center of a content-related dispute have not been edited by me for some time, and my last article edit was not vandalism, and was reverted. ([1]) I planned to take a break, and my activities were limited to the aforementioned edit and my user and talk pages. Therefore, this block is unjustified.

Decline reason:

The "Blocked?!?!?" section below indicates that the blocking admin is probably right. Your unblock request is also not on point: It is unclear what your intentions about taking a break have got to do with the validity of this block, and you are also not blocked for "content-related disputes".—  Sandstein  21:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

Comment: I don't understand why the link in the unblock request goes where it goes, but [found and fixed that] as to "the last article edit" to which it refers:

• 07:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC) edit by Rollosmokes
• 10:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC) revert by Baseball Bugs
• 15:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC) restoration by Firsfron of Rollosmokes' edit

Added diffs to aid an understanding of the predicament here in some small way. — Athaenara ✉ 21:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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).

Rollosmokes (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I will reiterate: My last article edit was not vandalism (see explaination above), and it was reverted. The articles in the center of a content-related dispute have not been edited by me for some time, and those articles were not truly vandalized. I planned to take a break from editing, and my activities were limited to the aforementioned last article edit and my user and talk pages. Once again, this block is unjustified.

Decline reason:

Three of your recent edits saved me the trouble of an exhaustive and sordid crawl through your edit history: this, [2] and [3]. It takes a very broad interpretation of WP:NPA to consider that comment a personal attack. Just because someone is critical of your conduct does not mean they were attacking you ... in fact, I think the anon was bending over backwards to try to be nice. Then there's the fact that it was on an article talk page, not your own talk page where you'd have more right to do so. And you did it after being requested to stop. We also have this edit summary. This is what you felt necessary to violate NFCC #9 over? The use of "the"? This is definitely one for Lame Edit Wars, which I think has one exactly like this. All this indicates that you are a textbook example of a disruptive and tendentious editor, your useful contribs notwithstanding. Your protestations to the contrary, you do seem to be interested (perhaps unconsciously) in creating conflict and hostility around yourself. You really need to do something about that martyr complex you've got going. The current situation is an ample opportunity. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

Blocked?!?!?

This is a travesty of justice. I will be vindicated.

By the way, I don't have a list of "seven vultures" as Baseball Bugs believes. It's just three down to two. And it'll stay that way until I return that Wascally Wabbitt is on the very top of the list. He monitors and critiques every little thing I do. He obviously has little to do but behave like a Wiki-bully. I have a new name for Baseball Bugs: How about Big Brother?

And, Big Brother, what did you find so offensive about my brief use of the John Carlos/Tommie Smith picture? They made a statement with their actions. They stood firm for what they believed in. They were silent, but the message was very loud and clear. As a fellow African-American, I am very proud of what they accomplished on the track and off, and if I can find some inspiration in that picture, you have no right to criticize me for it.

In fact Baseball Bugs, why don't you just leave me the hell alone and bother someone else. Should you continue to comment on my talk page, your words will be deleted on sight. Have a good life. Rollosmokes (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me get my scorecard clear here. I will take one charge at a time.

Lessheard vanU claims the following:

• I have been "uninterested in collaborative & consensual article editing", and are "not prepared to discuss matters to resolve difficulties..."

Have you even bothered to see the bulk of my work? I have collaborated and consented with others on articles, and I have discussed matters -- go read the talk section of WP:TVS.

• I have been accused of using "offensive terminology with regard to editors you are in dispute with..."

Keeping the focus on this issue, I kept my "offensive terminology" limited to my talk page. While I will admit it may not have been the smartest thing to do, I cannot hide my feelings on this issue, and on the folks who have pushed me to this point.

• I would rather "disrupt the encyclopedia to maintain your preferred versions of articles."

I have stated time and again that my main objective here is to provide accuracy. I have no style preference when it comes to articles I edit or those I have created.

In denying my unblock request, Sandstein says "It is unclear what your intentions about taking a break have got to do with the validity of this block, and you are also not blocked for 'content-related disputes'."

These are two separate issues. Sandstein obviously didn't read my section on taking a break. And, I was blocked for content-related reasons -- I was accused of vandalising WEWS, which was later found not to be the case. The WEWS article has nothing to do with the issue between myself and Baseball Bugs, et al. I believe (and Firsfron confirmed) that Baseball Bugs' revertion of WEWS was done out of spite. (See the above breakdown by Athaenara.) By the way, the last time I checked, vandalism is also a content-related issue.

Let me get one thing straight here. I did not vandalize WEWS -- nor did I vandalize several Los Angeles television station articles (an IP editor changed the format of the Template:Infobox Broadcast in those articles, and I reverted the changes back to the correct version of the Infobox, which Baseball Bugs reverted en masse). As far as CW Television Network-related articles are concerned, I removed one word but the link still reads the same and directs correctly. Is that really vandalism?

Over at WP:AN/I, HandThatFeeds says that I have "shown no indication he understands what he did wrong, and has indicated he intends to continue his disruptive behavior...", and projects that I will "go back to his behavior as soon as the block expires."

Is having an different viewpoint a crime here? If so, then what kind of collaborative effort is Wikipedia supposed to be? When did we revert back to the McCarthyism era of the 1950s? As for my future behavior, I will say this: If something needs to be fixed -- whether it be a missing citation, a grammatical error, correcting paragraph or sentence structure, and all style-related concerns -- I will fix it. That is what editors do, right?

Baseball Bugs, the force behind this witchhunt, continues to paint me a distruptive force who is hell-bent on forcing my point-of-view down everyone's throats. In his world, there is no room for differences of opinion. Anyone who has variations must conform or get out of the way. And now that I'm temporarily and partially silenced, he's gloating on WP:AN/I and on my talk page, with two comments which I deleted previously. Someone needs to tell Baseball Bugs to COOL IT. He's not an administrator, so he needs to stop behaving like one. When my block is lifted, I can just as easily go after him with a Request for Comment regarding his bullying tactics, and I can find a great many other editors that he's teed off.

Finally, let's put this in proper perspective. I wil repeat once more: It is one three-letter word -- the. To capitalize or not to capitalize, that is the question. We're fighting over one three-letter word. Throughout history people have been jailed and killed over many more words, both written and spoken. I am being unfairly persecuted over just one. Is that fair? Think about it.

By the way, about my brief use of the John Carlos/Tommie Smith picture: They made a statement with their actions. They stood firm for what they believed in. They were silent, but the message was very loud and clear. As a fellow African-American, I am very proud of what they accomplished on the track and off, and if I can find some inspiration in that picture, no one should criticize me for it. I temporarily forgot about the fair-use policy, so it was my bad there. I should be warned for it, not have my block reduced to 72 hours as Blueboy96 suggests on WP:AN/I.

Rollosmokes (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

Following our email conversation I have now unblocked you. I am sure that by concentrating only on improving the encyclopedia you will prove to be a great contributor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the communication, LessHeard. Welcome back, Rollo. Please heed Mark's words. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing the contentious stuff from the userpage would go a long way to improve matters, as would taking heed of the content of BB's suggestion below. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, Thank you for your hard work on this issue. Rollosmokes, welcome back. Kingturtle (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The CW Matter

I note, that within 48 hours of being released from the above block, that you have again commenced altering the infobox of WPSG to your preferred version - which does not have the consensus of the rest of the concerned editors of that article. I was quickly appraised of the situation,and have suggested using the article protection to start a discussion on what the consensus is, and how it is arrived at, on the article talkpage. To permit you to participate I have decided that it would be inappropriate to re-impose or otherwise block you at the moment, but I am disappointed that you should be so cavalier with the good faith shown toward you by various parties that you would so readily resume your edit war in this matter. I am advising you that I will again block you if you continue to act inappropriately (that is, edit war with the other editors of the WPSG article) once the editing protection of the article expires. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

KCPQ

I don't I have a problem with the COL and city thing anymore, but I was wondering why the subchannels have to have their own subsection instead of being on the infobox. Template:Infobox Broadcast lists: List any digital subchannels, separating each line with </br>, if not identified in "affiliations" or elsewhere.. --~Pikachu9000 18:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually nevermind, if you choose to add the - instead of the /, I'm perfectly fine with that from now on. --~Pikachu9000 18:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)