This user may have left Wikipedia. CoolKatt number 99999 has not edited Wikipedia since May 2007. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
If you are going to leave rude messages, then do not leave any at all -- CoolKatt number 99999.
Attention. I am with many of you in supporting a permablock of BenH. He has vandalized too many TV station articles. I have fixed some of his edits myself. If you support me in this matter, sign here. CoolKatt number 99999 03:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop threatening BenH with blocks and especially with any sort of permanent ban. Sue Anne 05:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His edits do not give you the right to threaten him. It gives you the right to post to AN/I or to open a constructive dialogue with him. Threatening him and being uncivil is not constructive. Sue Anne 05:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, after I looked at it I realized that maybe a template for Hawaii wasn't necessary. I just figured I'd put it in because it seemed to be the only state missing from all the Fox templates.
Haha, you're going to need better evidence for an assertion of sockpuppetry than the fact that two users agree on an article deletion. Opabinia regalis 01:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I mean jeeze.. every AFD I see a ton of "as per nom" they must ALL be sock puppets. Get a grip.--Crossmr 01:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Crossmr 02:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No you're not doing the right thing. You claimed over half the people invovled in that AFD as sock puppets, yet didn't even pursue it via the proper means. All you did was slander them and leave tags on people's pages. That is a personal attack. --Crossmr 15:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one forced me to vote delete on that AFD. You need to seriously get a hold of your self. --Crossmr 19:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunatley I'm not the only one you falsely accused and smeared in public. The incident with me is only part of your behaviour pattern that is not appropriate for a community environment. We all have strong opinions about things, its part of human nature, however I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by continually being so aggressive and abrasive. In a community, its just not going to get you anywhere or accomplish what it is you want to accomplish. My suggestion is to start by apologizing to all the people you attacked, take responsibility for your behaviour and begin to work with those around you instead of lashing out at them, and mean it.You've insulted a lot of people and they're not likely to be so quick to forgive and forget such behaviour or such a period of time, so reverting to your previous behaviour isn't likely to be tolerated for very long.--Crossmr 04:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are making unnecessary changes to articles. Before you go into your defense and accuse me of WP:OWN, let me first tell you that this has NOTHING to do with me and everything to do with you. Your recent revisions, such as the wording in WCBS-TV and the changing of the picture size in WPHL-TV were so unnecessary because these things weren't a problem for anyone until you decided to fix what wasn't broken.
Like I've told you before: stop nitpicking and learn how to become a better all-around contributor. Rollosmokes 06:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are constantly re-reverting WCAU to a version -- YOUR VERSION -- of poorer quality, with very many unnecessary changes. You're also undoing several changes I've made in WCMH-TV, including one which I emphasized in my last revertion. (Tip: check the station's website.) I'm warning you -- don't start this stuff up again. Rollosmokes 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too add onto this, I reverted and changed arround your unneeded Trivia section on WDJT because your comment made it sound like it was an embarassment for CBS to be on such a low channel number. It isn't (at least in WDJT's case, WWJ and CBS' handling of them on the other hand, uggh...), mainly because it's on between cable channels 5-10 on most systems, and the station has tried to make lemonade out of the lemons by buying good shows and trying to compete on even footing with the other Big Three Milwaukee stations. I kept the Trivia section but removed the comment and replaced it with something more NPOV. Nate 10:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"!-- Do not remove the merge tag. Doing so is considerd vandalism. --"
So, anyone who removes YOUR mandated merge tags from WKBS-TV (Philadelphia) and/or WGTW-TV is committing vandalism? Or is that just for me? You are so sad. (And you're a bad speller also -- it's considered, with two "e"s.) Rollosmokes 14:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are reciving this message because you have been involved in a dispute with BenH before. Due to some currently ongoing disputes with this user, I invite you to check out Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenH. —Whomp[T] [C] 01:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you make an AfD on the RfC case against you? Comment on the RfC as is appropriate; AfD is for Mainspace articles only. -- Samirधर्म 21:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to speedy relete the AfD as housekeeping, but primarily it's to avoid things snowballing -- Samirधर्म 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please cite a source on WCVB transmitting from the WBZ-TV tower as retaliation for the old WHDH-TV's appeal? I have never found anything about that before. --WCQuidditch☎✎ 02:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WFIL-TV and WPVI-TVare the same station! There is no need for a split.
Also, there is no need to split the KYW-TV article into WPTZ and WRCV-TV, former calls for KYW-TV. The history of WPTZ and WRCV-TV is the history of KYW-TV because they are the same station! It is an integral part of the history of the history of the station that does not need an article. A redirect? Maybe, but an article, no! This goes for both stations! WKBS and WGTW, well they are two different stations, so keep them apart! Kramden4700 06:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop acting like you own the articles, please see: WP:OWN. There was no gap between WFIL-TV changing to WPVI-TV, it was something that just happened with only very minor changes occurring. The WKBS and WGTW situation is not the same - different calls and a gap of years. Mention WKBS in the WGTW article and vice versa, but there is no need to merge the two different stations. Let me make this somewhat clear splitting WFIL-TV and WPVI-TV would be like splitting the WCAU article into different articles based on the ownership of the station breaking it up into WCAU-TV (The Bulletin), WCAU-TV (CBS) and WCAU-TV (NBC) – something that would make absolutely no sense! Kramden4700 01:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the call letter meanings from the AETN article. An AETN viewer services representative says (in an eMail) that while those meanings are logical, they are not factually correct. Please do not add them back again. Amnewsboy 04:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WCAU-TV, WPHL-TV, WVIT, WKBS-TV (Philadelphia), and WGTW-TV[edit]
Your needless reverting of these articles is getting very tiredsome. The revisions you have made are redundant, of poor quality, and proves once again that you are a poor editor. A rundown:
WCAU, WKBS-TV and WGTW-TV: see Kramden4700's comment above.
WPHL-TV: what's with the triple-space between the last paragraph and the logo gallery, especially when there's no text in that space? That's a waste.
WVIT: the lines attempting to further explain the WATR/WHNB dual affiliation, and of WVIT's power increase were redundant. It isn't necessary to overexplain, the simpler version -- written by me, as it happens -- is fine as it is.
The versions NOT edited by you (and yes, I have revised or rewritten most of all of these articles) are of BETTER QUALITY.
You just don't learn. Not to mention your hypocrisy for wanting BenH permanently blocked when a block of undetermined length could you do some good. Rollosmokes 05:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Please stop reverting my edits, especially if you yourself do not want to get blocked. Also, stop being uncivil on my talk page, if you can't be civil, don't leave me any messages at all...believe it or not, you ARE violating WP:OWN..."
Me, get blocked? Me, uncivil? Me, violating WP:OWN? Puhleeezzzeee!!!
"And by the way, WKBS and WGTW need to be merged, like it or not"
Says you, and only you. Who made you an administrator? Unless you are, then your words mean NOTHING. As for me, they mean even less.
Have you forgotten the trouble you put me through when you tried to bully me? Not to mention that feeble attempt to muzzle me with that token Request for Comment -- which, by the way, I've never gotten an apology for (from YOU) for after it went down in flames?
In short, should I listen to anything you say? Sure, WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER. I have spoken. Rollosmokes 05:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Rollosmokes. You are seriously violating WP:OWN. You really need to take a bit of a time out or something and calm down. If you want control over articles, start your own website. Kramden4700 04:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I did delete the page and turn it into a redirect to my main user page. Now, do NOT threaten me ever again. In fact, just leave me alone. YOU have been warned."
Thanks for listening for once. BTW, what is a "threat"? I'll leave you alone when you stop laying your crap all over Wikipedia.
"And you yourself are violating WP:POINT by saying the ariticle should be deleted."
How so? In fact, I proved my point when you deleted that silly subpage. Now, how about the rest of them? Rollosmokes 07:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A quote from CoolKatt that demonstrates his policy on accuracy[edit]
Callsign meanings that make sense ARE NOT SPECULATION.[1]
Do you mean to say, Katt, that something you make up should be accepted as fact merely because it makes sense to you (the person who made them up)? Lambertman 19:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message. I am a registered user, but I choose to make some edits anonymously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.161.235 (talk • contribs)
Last time I checked, removing merge tags was not vandalism. You have no right to insert "do not remove" requests in merge tags. Please stop this. Blueboy96 02:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, please do not make unnecessary edits to the aforementioned article. I have removed the gallery section you contributed; if you have any problems, please contact me, and we can discuss the matter further on the article's talk page. Thanks. -- LBM 22:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule at WWOR-TV. (You reverted five times in under 24 hours.) If you agree to discuss this matter in good faith at Talk:WWOR-TV (without reverting again for 24 hours), I will lift the block. You can respond here or by e-mailing me. —David Levy 19:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening to nominate the article for deletion is not discussing the matter in good faith. The block stands. —David Levy 19:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, stop editing. It's only because of a technical glitch that you're able to. All edits that you make to any page other than this one will be reverted. —David Levy 20:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock reviewed|I won't do it again, I swear.|block was basically justified.}}
I suggest you take 24 hours away from Wikipedia, it will all seem a lot less worth worrying about. I will drop David a note. RichFarmbrough 20:20 11 July2006 (GMT).
...And, are we supposed to welcome you back with outstretched arms and a John Sebastian song playing in the background? I was hoping you learned your lesson from being blocked, but you apparently didn't. You started up again with WWOR-TV and also re-reverted small changes I made to Hearst-Argyle, not to mention your attempt to evade your block. You should have been permanently banned, or at the least asked to refrain from editing television articles indefinitely.
Just to let you know, that frivolous RfC you filed against CFIF will go up in smoke, just like the ones against A Man In Black and myself...take that to the bank! Rollosmokes 08:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding speculative call letters to articles. I reverted your WBSF edit because they haven't officially changed the call letter meaning yet, and the article makes that clear with the word may. Until it happens, the call letters should stay the same. Nate 21:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, this is Time1, I need your and everyone's help about the page I created called the Paramount Stations Group. I need help to finish the page. Thanks
13:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not deliberately introduce incorrect information into articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Buckner 1986 16:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! --Crossmr 04:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CoolKatt number 99999. This message concerns the recent request for investigation filed about you. Note that deliberately adding unverified information is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Any such information can be removed immediately, and persisting in adding such information after appropriate warnings will lead to a block. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Following the recent request for investigation, you were asked not to deliberately add unverified information to articles. You appear to have done so again on WUCW, WWOR-TV, WBSF, KTVU, and KNTV. Please cite reliable sources for such information; any further violation of the Verifiability policy will result in a block. Thank you for your contributions, but please follow policies. :) // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 14:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please wait a little while. There is currently a small backlog of unblock requests, so it may take a few hours for an administrator to get to your request. For the sake of fairness, I won't process your request myself since I'm the administrator who blocked you. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock denied. G'day CoolKatt,
I've reviewed the block, and I agree with it. You knew the consequences of your actions, and you persisted regardless. I think it'll do you a world of good to take a little break. You have not merely insisted on inserting unverified information (even though, after reading the relevant request for investigation, it appears you aren't even certain what you've written is true), but you have edit warred with anyone who attempted to remove your inappropriate changes. I appreciate that it's not nice to go up against someone who accuses you unfairly of "vandalism", but revert warring is never the answer. Your insistence on making poor edits, and willingness to misbehave in an effort to keep those edits in the encyclopaedia, make this a very fair block indeed. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an also a Request for Arbitration [2] in progress that may be of interest to any other admins that stop by. Lambertman 17:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is NOT over Amnewsboy. Once I am unblocked, you will have an RfC filed against you. CoolKatt number 99999 03:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have every right to do so, although I would recommend taking fuddlemark's advice, taking time off of Wikipedia, and cooling off instead. I don't have any other comment on the matter. Amnewsboy 03:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another CoolKatt RfC threat? This one will likely be as frivolous as the ones against A Man in Black, Rollosmokes, and I. --CFIF(talk to me) 13:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --Rekarb Bob 19:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Due to your recent blocks, I would be happy to take something off your back, but not the WP block. Maybe your subpages? I'll be glad to do that. -TrackerTV 05:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Your change to the page WDCA was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks.
More tit-for-tat. Is this your only comeback -- a generic message? Is this the only defense you can put together as the noose gets tighter around your neck? You have been warned and warned about your behavior, yet you continue to do what you have been asked by administrators and others NOT TO DO, and you leave these smart-ass remarks on mine and others' talk pages. How sad.
You are truly on your last legs, my friend. I give you a week more, maybe 10 days, perhaps 14 days, and you'll be gone from Wikipedia forever. Really, the sooner the better. Until that inevitable time arrives, PLEASE REFRAIN FROM CONTACTING ME unless you want to know what REAL INCIVILITY looks like. Thanks. Rollosmokes 09:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Buckner 1986 15:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've been back to your old tricks again, despite your blocks from a few days ago. I've blocked you for forty-eight hours. I think the best thing for you to do, when you return after your block, is to stay away from the articles where you've been reverting and, for good measure, do not revert. At all. If you can manage that, you may be able to avoid being blocked for a yet longer period of time. Please pull your head in, CoolKatt; our assumptions can only take us so far when you persist in misbehaving. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 17:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please listen to Fuddlemark, CK. You and I have had a good working relationship, but I cannot condone your recent activity, violating WP:3RR and filing multiple RfCs. You've got some good edits to your name. Don't spoil them by getting banned from Wikipedia. Take care, --Firsfron of Ronchester 17:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CK, please -- stop with the nonsense. Your RfC's are going nowhere... your RfAr file is piling up... and you've made quite a few editors and admins angry. In short, unless you are more cooperative, you will be banned for good. That's not a threat, but a statement of fact -- the admins are patient, but their patience will eventually run out. As a community, the users you interact with regularly have virtually lost their patience already.
You have brought this upon yourself, because you selectively choose which Wiki policies to stand by (WP:STALK and WP:VAND), and which ones you won't (like WP:V, WP:OWN, and WP:3RR). As a group, we have tried to reason with you, tried being civil, and it's all been for naught.
Your edits are not bad edits, per se, but they need refinement. You need to learn that an edit that goes against you is not necessarily a bad or vandalous edit -- and, by the same token, an edit you enter in WP is not necessarily a good or meaningful edit. Furthermore, you need to understand that because you perceive it to be so, that does not make it factual or verifiable. WP:OWN says it best: You agreed to allow others to modify your work here. So let them.
We have tried to help you out and offer goodwill -- yet you have refused to follow instructions, or pledged to do so then completely ignored your word. Please, think about your actions before you continue down this line. Amnewsboy 01:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but all I am trying to do is make WP better. I won't violate WP:V again, and I did not want to violate 3RR, but I was provoked. Buckner 1986 should have just left me alone. All I want is a good experience, but some users don't want me here (like Buckner 1986 and fuddlemark/MarkGallagher). Please understand me now. CoolKatt number 99999 05:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you feel I want you to leave Wikipedia. I can only assure you I don't wish for anyone involved in these incidents to be forced out. However, there are certain rules that govern the behaviour of alll of us on Wikipedia: don'tedit aggressively; don't insert data you can't source and don't know to be true; try to be civil and pleasant at all times; and so on. It all boils down to, try to work with other users, not against them. This is not negotiable. If you're willing to behave yourself, then you're more than welcome to contribute here — good authors are, after all, always welcome. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:58, 23 July 2006 (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 am only trying to make articles better. But Buckner 1986 keeps labeling my edits as vandalism, he is the real problem. I need you to understand, I am trying to learn, but Buckner 1986 won't let me. Unblock me, and block him instead, please. I also promise to be more civil.
Decline reason:
The other user was blocked for their part in the edit war, but that doesn't excuse your action the expectation is that editors will deal with such situations in a mature and controlled manner.
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.
Oh shut up already CoolKatt. Your promises don't mean a thing to anyone. --CFIF(talk to me) 22:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need for incivility. --pgk(talk) 22:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, but this guy is crazy and continues to anger and provoke everyone. He's got a pending ArbCom case against him, if you want to take a look. --CFIF(talk to me) 22:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at fuddlemark's talk I see you are engaging in a petty war of words with User:CFIF I suggest now would be a good time to stop, learn to know when to simply walk away from a situation. No one is going to indefinitely block another user because it would be convenient to you and enable you to get your own way. --pgk(talk) 21:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I already have. --pgk(talk) 21:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one else prevents you from learning or forces you to behave in any manner. I've told you this numerous times and you continue to blame others for your behaviour. Its on-going proof of either your inability to learn or your refusal. It certainly isn't anyone else's fault. And further proof that you should not be editing here.--Crossmr 21:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It ends when your behaviour ends. It started with your personal attacks and continues as you continue those and try to sell stories about someone behaving perfectly normal as uncivil. You have a serious problem and you need to address it. Your continual blocks and the numerous users who've had it with you should have been evidence of that long ago. I'm not interested in hearing your story about how no one lets you change, and how you'll promise to be better. Just do it as the slogan goes. You've told that story too many times for it to have any meaning. --Crossmr 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once I am unblocked after an hour, I will add Buckner 1986 to the suspected sockpuppets of Kramden4700. CoolKatt number 99999 04:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And while you're at it, block Buckner 1986 indefinetely. He is starting to test my patience. CoolKatt number 99999 04:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've encountered this wonderful and dedicated Wikipedian already, and looks like he's locked in on you now. Being "responsible for your own actions" is his tagline. Best just to let him put whatever he wants on your talk page and completely ignore him. Seriously, it's not worth it. --SayWhatYouMeanAndMeanWhatYouSay 04:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turner Classic Movies: Airs movies from the Warner Bros., MGM, RKO, and United Artists libraries. Was founded by Ted Turner in 1994 to broadcast films from his extensive archive. It only aired MGM, RKO, UA, and pre-1948 WB at first, but after Turner merged with Time Warner in 1996, Turner's library became part of the Warner Bros. library - which meant that WB once again owned its pre-1948 films, although they technically are under the Turner Entertainment division, while WB handles sales and distribution.
Gradually, 1948-mid 70s WB titles were mixed in the schedule. WB boasts that they have the largest film library of any major American movie studio.
Among its holdings:
Almost all films, TV series, and shorts made and/or released by WB themselves
Most pre-1986 MGM films, TV series, and shorts (such as Gone with the Wind -- Ted Turner's favorite movie -- and Tom and Jerry)
Some United Artists material (some through Turner, others WB had before 1996)
US/Canadian and Australian rights to most of the RKO library
Popeye theatrical cartoons released between 1933 and 1957
Most Hanna-Barbera cartoons (including most TV cartoons and the theatrical film Heidi's Song)
Most properties held by Lorimar-Telepictures at the time of its merger with Warner in 1989
1974-89 Rankin-Bass
TV shows made by Lorimar
TV shows distributed by Telepictures
Many films made by Lorimar
Allied Artists/Monogram Pictures library
National General Pictures library (except co-productions with Cinema Center Films)
the 1971 film Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory
most of the pre-1990 Saul Zaentz film library
the 1978-1982 Orion Pictures library
the non-Japan rights to the first 3 Pokémon films
Castle Rock Entertainment films made after Turner acquired Castle Rock (except the Region 1 rights to The Story of Us owned by Universal)
Productions by Cartoon Network Studios and Williams Street Studios
You claim to be the victim of invicility but I notice edits liek this of yours which are unacceptable. I notice you got blocked to cool down, I suggest the blocking admin was very lenient on the length of his block. The expectation is still that you deal with these situations in a mature and constructive manner. --pgk(talk) 06:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case you don't know, the Arbitration Commission has agreed to take the case against you to the next level.
Yet, you still haven't listened to any of us in regards to your behavior. And, again, you continue to go tit-for-tat with me as you re-reverted (again) my edits on WTXF-TV. Everything is just piling up against you...just give up already. No, wait, that time will come in the very near future. I can't wait! Rollosmokes 07:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that nobody enjoys being accused of vandalism, and I will deal with Buckner_1986 (talk • contribs) for his personal attacks. However, you are well aware — because you have been warned repeatedly and blocked at least three times in the past week — that engaging in revert wars and nasty arguments (this note, in particular, does you no favours), and yet you continue to misbehave. Pull your head in, mate. You're only hurting yourself. When you return in one week, I hope you're ready to start editing a bit more constructively, rather than making insults and engaging in edit wars. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't I tell you that you were to never block me again? CoolKatt number 99999 08:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can recall, no. If you did, then I'm afraid I didn't notice. In any case, it's entirely within your power to keep from being blocked on Wikipedia (by me, or any other admin), but the trick is to start behaving in a manner more appropriate to a collaborative environment. Simply making demands or threats of your fellow Wikipedians will not prevent you from being blocked, I'm afraid. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am not misbehaving. I am only trying to improve the article. I guess I have a new enemy: YOU. CoolKatt number 99999 08:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are editing aggressively, revert warring, and being incivil. It's arguable whether or not your changes are improving the articles you war over; regardless of the merits of your contributions, however, your methods are unacceptable. As for "enemies", well, there's nobody on Wikipedia that I would consider my enemy. You're free to hold whatever opinion of me you wish to hold, but I don't hold any malice towards you — and in my experience, one-sided "you're my enemy!" conflicts tend to make the person doing all the shouting look rather silly. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and Pilotguy, if you read this, talk to fuddlemark. The one-hour block should have been enough, but one week, that is crossing the line. CoolKatt number 99999 08:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mark. You are being very incivil, and breaching practically ever policy around. I suggest an indef. block, but just my say. Computerjoe's talk 17:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CoolKatt: Should I take the subpages? -TrackerTV 19:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I have unblocked you so that you may participate in your WP:RfAr case. Until the Arbitres rule on any injunctions, I would appreciate it if you not abuse my good faith by aggressive editing (I'm rather disappointed in your request, above, for assistance in your edit wars). fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 02:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, the reason — the sole reason — that I have unblocked you well before your time expires is so that you can contribute to the ArbCom case. You're unblocked so you can argue in your own defence; not so that you can get yourself in more trouble. Asking me to help you in your edit wars and accusing other editors of being sockpuppets, with no proof, definitely comes under the heading of "more trouble". fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear about your troubles. I will remind you, however, that I do not mediate user or content disputes at this time, so perhaps you should have another administrator look at the issue. Thanks for your understanding. --Pilotguy(roger that) 02:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please comply with this ban; if you do not, it may be enforced by blocking.
For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 12:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but i've got the feeling that he might not obey these bans. But I still agree that they should be made —MinunSpiderman 13:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to remind you again to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA running around to admins to try and convince them I'm being uncivil when I'm not is a violation of those. Why do you think you're up for arbitration and blocked so much lately?--Crossmr 15:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --Crossmr 18:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee imposed restrictions on your ability to edit Wikipedia due to past behaviour on your part. Notwithstanding this ruling, you have continued to engage in prohibited editing.
As a result you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for as required by the ruling. The restrictions placed on you by the Arbitration Committee were clear. If you continue to breach this arbcom ruling you will be subject to a longer block.
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 am not done participating in my ArbCom yet. I have to present more evidence and stuff
Decline reason:
Breach of injunction, you need to email arbcom your evidence or a request to reconsider your injunction.
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.
Your best bet will be to submit any evidence you may wish to present to a member of ArbCom via email to have it added to your case. I strongly doubt that any administrators will be willing to overturn an ArbCom-imposed block. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not, I want to do it the old-fashioned way - editing to add evidence. CoolKatt number 99999 05:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To which you've shown you cannot abide by the arbcoms injunction. You had an opportunity to provide your evidence and instead chose to violate your injunction.--Crossmr 06:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't start this Crossmr. I have had enough of you. You are just mad because of my sockpuppet accusation. I demand an apology for all the trouble you've caused me -- including that AIAV report. Maybe you should be blocked too, Crossmr, so you can spend time away from WP, and therefore, me. After all, your arrogance has gotten you into many disputes. CoolKatt number 99999 06:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten you into no trouble. As I've told you many times, you control your actions and are responsible for your behaviour. No one forces you to act as you do.--Crossmr 06:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've got strong doubts you are innocent, but feel free to write evidence here —MinunSpiderman • Review Me 14:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support opinion on my RfA. With a final vote of (62/0/1), my RfA passed, and I am now an Administrator. I will work hard to ensure that the tools entrusted to me will not be abused, and will wield my mop proudly. Happy editing! --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If no one cleans up this article within like 72 hours, I suggest it be nominated for deletion. After all, having no article is better than having a messy article. CoolKatt number 99999 03:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest taking a look at this. AfD is not the solution to everything, you know. —Whompt/c 19:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree as well -- while it does need a once-over for clarity purposes, there is no reason to delete the article entirely. I would also recommend recommend staying away from TV articles entirely for the time being while your RfAR case is going on. Amnewsboy 07:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I am not mistaken, Buckner 1986 is also a sock puppet of Spotteddogsdotorg. He has had similar edit patterns to Kramden4700 and Rekarb Bob. Something needs to be done about him. CoolKatt number 99999 03:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment withdrawn. Why was WUFX, the WB affiliate for Jackson, added to the Meridian TV template? WUFX's signal does not reach Meridian. As a Jackson area resident, it can be tough at times getting it through the rabbit ears. Meridian is served by a WB 100+ station.
Lee359 00:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Lee359 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.
CoolKatt is banned for one year from articles which relate to US television stations. He may continue to comment on talk pages.
CoolKatt is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts. After the expiration of any ban imposed by this decision that ban may be re-imposed should he resume tendentious or disruptive editing. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999#Log of blocks and bans.
For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 17:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I've deleted the following subpages per Arbitration remedy 3.1 ("All of CoolKatt's subpages that do not comply with Wikipedia:User page#What about user subpages? shall be deleted"). If you'd like any of these pages temporarily restored for personal use, please contact me on my talk page or by email; note that these should not be thereafter placed on Wikipedia.
The remaining pages are listed in the //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Prefixindex/User:CoolKatt_number_99999 Prefixindex. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 21:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CoolKatt number 99999. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Dreamworks.jpg) was found at the following location: User:CoolKatt number 99999/Sandbox 5. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CoolKatt number 99999. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:FMA movie.jpg) was found at the following location: User:CoolKatt number 99999/Sandbox 2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CoolKatt number 99999. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:MyTV.png) was found at the following location: User:CoolKatt number 99999/Draft. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 00:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CoolKatt number 99999, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Pax68.png) was found at the following location: User:CoolKatt number 99999/Draft 3. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CoolKatt number 99999, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Wnds04.png) was found at the following location: User:CoolKatt number 99999/Draft. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 07:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPN no longer exists. KansasCity 12:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:UPN New York, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:UPN Iowa, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Template:UPN Iowa itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 00:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have heard about how anyone can give inaccurate information. The station is big in the community and it appears that the very least we can do is to ensure what they have done right. Every station changes line ups. I can't imagine why anyone would keep putting outdated information on the site from May whenever they feel like it. I would like to have a free thinking forum for this. I do understand these people don't have ABC, but they do good work with informing the city , of heat banks, school supplies, food, free medical. And it is the only full station in Detroit that has an African American as the President. I dont want to feel this is why the staion is being viewed unfairly but to continue to replace updated info with what was on in May is not right. Can we get a project going that will update the information and stop it from going back to the few lines that are incorrct. Also on the radio today it was said of the old programs listed that someone keeps changing it. They can be fined when someone goes back to what was on here in May. it is a problem. Maybe this is a research project for the Wiki Community. The Detroit community calls in on radio and is furous. It could give Wiki a bad rap because it almost appears personal . Lets do a community page in the true spirit of fair and impartial information..
You post a great deal, Are you interested in helping, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediawatcher2005 (talk • contribs) (20:13, August 14, 2007
This editor has been inactive for nearly a year, having been blocked for disruptive edits and harrassing other editors (including myself). I'm not sure he'll even return when his block is lifted. Rollosmokes 16:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is CBS Mandate. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion of Template:PBS Alabama[edit]
Category:Media General, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template:PBS Alabama has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Template:ABC Kansas has been nominated for merging with Template:TV Stations Kansas. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
