This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ALR (talk | contribs) at 06:35, 4 August 2006 (rvv). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:35, 4 August 2006 by ALR (talk | contribs) (rvv)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Read BEFORE Posting:
- Vandalism and other offensive commentary/trolling will be deleted expeditiously.
- If you want me to respond/take your comments seriously, sign them with ~~~~.
- Be sure to be signed in. Anonymous users will have their messages deleted without comment.
- I will respond on your talk page, but I will not return to your talk page after that unless you've responded on my talk page. Sounds convoluted, but I'd rather be editing articles than reading your talk page.
- Add your comments to the bottom of the page.
- If you don't agree with a change that I've made to an article, please let me know nicely and I will address the issue.
Welcome!
Hello, Ardenn, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- 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 Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! karmafist 21:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: your reverts to CIVI, CFPL, CKNX, CHRO, and CHWI
Ardenn, recently you reverted a useful edit by 72.60.128.187 in the article on CIVI-TV. Following up on that change, I noticed that you had in fact proceeded to bulk-revert all of that same editor's additions to five different A-Channel stations. While you are correct in stating that the sale of CHUM assets to Bell hasn't completed yet, it does not invalidate the information about the sale. Those edits were relevant to the respective articles, and should not have been removed en masse. Please use caution in future before pursuing such actions. Thanks! --Ckatz 04:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please stop the unnecessary reverts on these pages. There is no need to undo this editor's work. Thank you. --Ckatz 04:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- "The sale of CHUM is irrelevant to the individual stations. The only article it belongs in is perhaps the main A-Channel and CHUM articles. I will revert it, because of the above."(Ardenn, replying on my talk page)
- It is definitely relevant to the individual stations, as they are directly affected by this change. Trust me, as someone who has worked in media for the better part of two decades, "who owns you" is very relevant. Besides, you're now continually reverting information that two editors (at least) agree is important. The proper course of action would be to discuss the issue on a talk page, probably at A-Channel (or somewhere similar). Cheers. --Ckatz 04:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- "The other guy doesn't count. He's not registered. For all I know, he's you." (Ardenn, replying on my talk page)
- Please, Ardenn, don't do this. Let's resolve this peacefully, okay? --Ckatz 04:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- "In 24 hours, I'll be reverting your edits." (Ardenn, replying on my talk page)
- I've no interest in playing games with Wiki rules, Ardenn. I've asked - quite nicely, I think - that we take this to a discussion. What do you have against that course of action? --Ckatz 04:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- "I'll agree that who owns you is important, but the transaction isn't complete. Right now, it's only speculation. The CRTC may say no." (Ardenn, replying on my talk page)
- "Speculation" is a bit of an understatement - yes, the CRTC may overturn the deal, but it probably will go through in some form. Regardless of the outcome, however, just the fact that the deal is pending is of direct relevance to each and every station. Furthermore, someone reading up on their local station may not click through to the main articles - but they still could stand to know about what is proposed. --Ckatz 04:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've posted a request for comment here and a call for discussion here to get some outside input on this matter. I would appreciate it if you could hold off on resuming your reversions to these articles so that there is sufficient time to allow people to comment. This is, I feel, a reasonable request. Thank you. --Ckatz 05:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
{{helpme}}
Help me
See User talk:Tawker -- Samir धर्म 05:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help. He didn't even have the decency to let me know about the block. Ardenn 05:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'd refrain from saying you'll revert changes in 24 hours though. I agree that is gaming 3RR. Don't think it's worth a block in my opinion, but it's not really a wise thing to say. -- Samir धर्म 05:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's a 31 hour block. I checked the log. As I said, he didn't have the decency to tell me. Ardenn 05:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I will e-mail Tawker -- Samir धर्म 05:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there is a block message, I think I explained it in there. Per "In 24 hours, I'll be reverting your edits. Ardenn 04:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)" it leads me to strongly believe that you were attempting to game the 3RR system instead of discussing and reaching a compromise. While I agree it is not vandalism that one comment, and that comment alone led to this block which I believe was justified at the time. I'm taking another look at the edits in question and will take another look -- Tawker 06:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- As an admin, you're still supposed to let people know why they're blocked. Ardenn 16:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Forgive me if I over-estimated you in assuming that you would read the block message, I figured the block reason would say plenty.... you know, it is there for a reason... it shouldn't be critical to have a talk page message saying the exact same -- Tawker 07:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- As an admin, you're still supposed to let people know why they're blocked. Ardenn 16:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there is a block message, I think I explained it in there. Per "In 24 hours, I'll be reverting your edits. Ardenn 04:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)" it leads me to strongly believe that you were attempting to game the 3RR system instead of discussing and reaching a compromise. While I agree it is not vandalism that one comment, and that comment alone led to this block which I believe was justified at the time. I'm taking another look at the edits in question and will take another look -- Tawker 06:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I will e-mail Tawker -- Samir धर्म 05:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's a 31 hour block. I checked the log. As I said, he didn't have the decency to tell me. Ardenn 05:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'd refrain from saying you'll revert changes in 24 hours though. I agree that is gaming 3RR. Don't think it's worth a block in my opinion, but it's not really a wise thing to say. -- Samir धर्म 05:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
CCOTW heads up
Since Flag of Canada will be the August Canada collaboration I hope You'll read the comments in the nomination and as a nominator prepare to co-ordinate the effort. feydey 21:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
You quitting Misplaced Pages..
I personally won't beg you to stay, only ask you to stay. You are not contributing by just saying "Well..ok fine, I'm gone". If something doesn't please you, well, help contributing to Misplaced Pages by finding solutions. --Deenoe 17:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)