User talk:ChrisP2K5/Archive5

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Fortunoff and use of "respectively"
Respectively would be correct if the sentence were phrased as follows: Fortunoff had two full-line stores in New York and two in New Jersey: in Westbury and White Plains; and in Woodbridge and Wayne, respectfully. You see? The "respectfully" in this case refers to a previously established order. In this case, two in NY and two in NJ establishes the order of the store locations that follow--thus the use of "respectively".

But this is not how it is structured, and the sentence as you have written it is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoasuckaa (talk • contribs) 17:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I suggest you take a course in grammar before reverting edits. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll let your incorrect reverts stand as a testament to your lack of basic grammar skills. You always seem to find conflict wherever you go in wikipedia, Chris. I feel sorry for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoasuckaa (talk • contribs) 21:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this case, I'm having someone try to tell me about grammar rules that simply don't apply in the situation you're noting. Don't feel sorry for me. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Card Sharks
Please don't re-create the article on the 2001 revival. Revivals don't get their own articles in most cases, and precedent in the article has been that the 2001 revival should stay in the main article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't tell me what to do. The fact remains that the revival is so dissimilar to the other two versions that NOT including a separate page for it is wrong. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * According to whom? There's no consensus whatsoever for it to be its own article. If other editors such as Sottolacqua are protesting the split, then clearly it's not meant to be split. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 21:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Sottolacqua is a troll. And quite frankly, so are you. I will kindly ask you to refrain from posting a reply. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You should familiarize yourself with this article. Sottolacqua (talk) 04:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to grasp the concept of "disruptive edits." Your constant nitpicking of my edits- most of which DO NOT CAUSE ANY PROBLEM- come very close to stalking and it's very grating. I'm giving you one warning and no more- either leave me alone and let me edit, or I go to ANI. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I come along to his discussion to provide a neutral input on the conduct here. I think you should read our civility and personal attacks policies. Please bear in mind calling someone a "troll" is a personal attack, and making such comments can lead to blocks by admins. Editors have been blocked because of it. I suggest you read the links I provided, and consider being more civil on Wikipedia. — Mythdon  t / c  04:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Mythdon, I am not going to be civil to someone who goes out of his way to cause trouble and stalk me. I think your anger is completely misplaced here. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no anger in my comment above. The sole editor who has shown any anger in this particular discussion is you. Civility is a policy that will take no excuses in violation, and you made up an excuse. I'm sorry that you are acting this way, but please stop. The tension in this discussion between you and TenPoundHammer is rising, and I am here to help the drama stop. — Mythdon  t / c  05:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The anger is between myself and Sottolacqua, not TenPound Hammer. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - ChrisP2K5 incivility and personal attacks Sottolacqua (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, I don't understand how calling someone a troll is anywhere CLOSE to personal attacks. And I also don't understand why you're acting so hypersensitive here and trying to blame me when YOU'RE the one who's at fault here. You pattern of edits are, to put it as nicely as I can, disruptive, and when most of my edits are reverted by one person for something that he wants to claim as "cleaning up" when no need exists for said cleanup then I have every right to assume that there are other motives behind said edits- and quite frankly, you haven't done a lot to prove said assumptions wrong. It's a rather disturbing pattern of behavior that borders on both stalking and trolling, and I don't see why you're trying to blame me for your actions. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

re: Let's put it out there...
Please refrain from provoking conflict through edits on my talk page. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, sir, but I'm not the one who decided to provoke this conflict. And considering some of the comments you've made about me recently I would seriously consider holding my tongue if I were you, because I'm one or two steps away from putting a complaint about you on the AN/I page myself.

Remember
Only just having three reverts in a 24-hour period is not against the rules. I have reverted exactly three times. FMAFan1990 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your report has been removed as there was no rules violation. I promise to find a RS. FMAFan1990 (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a rules violation and you committed another by removing the report when you don't have any authorization to. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I blocked for removing the AIV report for a very short while. This block has now expired. If you are minded to re-report them you may, but as noted below you should only report obvious vandalism and content disputes and edit wars are not only not obvious vandalism but may result in both parties being sanctioned. If there is a content dispute, I suggest you attempt dispute resolution first. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Warning about edit warring at Jeopardy!
I appreciate that you did not break the three-revert rule here, but please remember that people can and do get blocked for edit warring even if they don't breach 3RR, as it's still disruptive. FMAFan's edits, while unsourced, aren't really vandalism - so it's no excuse for you to join him in an edit war. Thanks. ~ mazca  t/c 20:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not disputing that he's made some disruptive edits - but again, it's not an excuse to do it yourself. If he continues to push unsourced changes, etc, please do report him again (though I suggest WP:ANI rather than AIAV next time). I'm not intending to "yell at you" here, just to remind you that edit warring doesn't actually solve anything - if you're in the right, just ask others to help. Thanks. ~ mazca  t/c 21:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, though, if the user in question is refusing to follow Wiki policy and cite his sources for his information and instead threatening other Wiki users, I have little reason to assume good faith in his edits. Also, I noticed on his talk page that he is blaming an Asperger's diagnosis for the trouble he has caused and that it's the reason why people are coming after him for disruptive edits which I think should've resulted in a longer block. He has a history, he has made statements on his user page that he refuses to follow Wiki policy, and it isn't going to stop. A fifteen-minute block? Come on. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken block
My block was in error - I have noted such in the block log. Sorry for the inconvenience. Toddst1 (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages
Please take a look at WP:TALK which states: "On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred." FMAFan1990 is fully within his rights to remove your comments from his talk page per this guideline. If you continue to reinsert and edit war over it, you will be blocked. either way (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Jury_Duty_(TV_series)
Firstly, see a discussion about a situation you are involved in here Editor_assistance/Requests. I have looked at this and the material that is being challenged is controversial and completely uncited. There could be legal ramifications to such claims. As such, it is not only reasonable but also policy for it to be challenged and removed. If you have a reliable source to back the claims that the series has been cancelled or that the producers have bought airtime then please add it but until then the material must remain out. The burden of proof is on you per WP:PROVEIT. On a side note, the remainder of the article needs to be be better referenced. Mfield (Oi!) 23:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I didn't yell at you at all, I merely directed you to some relevant policy. What I see from the article history is a slow motion edit war with editors arguing over a contentious piece of unsourced content. The edit warring of the past has no bearing on whether this disputed information is or is not verifiable. There is no dialogue on article talk. If information is contested and is unsourced then it should go until such time as it can be cited. There's nothing unusual about that - see our core verifiability policy. I would urge you not to continue an edit war over something that can presumably readily be sourced and thus become a moot point. At the very least you should explain your reasoning on article talk. I am not accusing you of anything, nor defending the actions of the other party, but the easy way to make this problem go away is to provide solid citations for what is contested. 05:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no attitude, and frankly I have no interest in whether you are "amused by it". My uninvolved admin intervention here was to prevent an edit war from continuing and to make sure that appropriate policy is being adhered to. I have explained to the other editor where they are going wrong just as I have explained to you where you are going wrong. It is up to all of you to discuss this properly on article talk. So far it seems that no one has made any effort to do so. I am trying to stop this from continuing and the only way that is going to happen is if the facts get straightened out. Previous blocks for 3RR have no bearing on the truth of the matter, as 3RR blocks don't judge who is right or wrong. You have accused the other editor/IP of vandalism but removal of unsourced content is not vandalism. This is a content dispute. You say the show has been cancelled yet you have no proof of this. The producer/creator says that it hasn't but he has no proof either. How about both sides try and come up with some proof instead of continuing this pointless revert war? The most damaging behavior here is the current edit war and the fighting over unsourced claims and allegations. Is it really worth arguing over? Mfield (Oi!) 06:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

NFL on Westwood One update info
Per your request, here's a link to the press release...right from the proverbial horse's mouth: http://images.westwoodone.com/images/pdf/pressreleases/NFLAnnouncers2.pdf

I put a footnote with the "2009 changes" list toward the bottom of the page.Mdumas43073 (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Higbee's


The article Higbee's has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No references

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mr.TrustWorthy Got Something to Tell Me?  22:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rahim Oberholtzer
A tag has been placed on Rahim Oberholtzer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. TM 22:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've since nominated for discussion at Articles for deletion/Rahim Oberholtzer. Feel free to discuss.--TM 23:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Frank X. Graves, Jr.
Hello! Your submission of Frank X. Graves, Jr. at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ucucha 12:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Tic-Tac-Dough has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. WikiLubber (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S., this is the only reliable source available to prove you wrong. WikiLubber (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And about THIS edit, I was NOT causing trouble. I was removing false information you posted, and you had no source. WikiLubber (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:WikiLubber. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. GSK (talk ● evidence) 22:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
GSK (talk ● evidence) 00:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page The Alvin Show has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. WikiLubber (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus, this edit has good reason. What was there was only POV, which is not usually allowed in articles, but on discussion pages. Here's the discussion page for The Alvin Show. WikiLubber (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiLubber, this is the second time you've gotten into an edit war with me for no reason. Please leave me alone and let me edit. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There IS a reason. Your edits were mostly speculation and POV, so I edited to a non-speculation article. Discuss it in the discussion page. WikiLubber (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus, this edit on Wheel of Fortune (U.S. daytime game show) was also done for a good reason by another user, and you did not bother to revert it. WikiLubber (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Now, talk here about discussion on the distribution rights to The Alvin Show. WikiLubber (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Listen, WikiLubber, I asked you nicely to leave me alone and let me edit. You are a known troublemaker throughout the Internet and I would appreciate it if you distanced yourself from me in the future. Otherwise I will file an AN/I report against you. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

TVLubber is NOT a troublemaker, and neither am I. And there is no proof that we are the same. Plus, do not attack me again. Now, leave us in peace, and distance yourself from us, and we will distance ourselves from you. WikiLubber (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

However, most of your edits to The Alvin Show were kinda constructive, so we'll leave it the way it is. WikiLubber (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus, we'll remove it from our watchlist, for we know that there are no actual vandals coming up anytime soon. You are in charge now. WikiLubber (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and one last thing. These are my final words to you. The TVLubber is not me, and that is final. I am not him, and he is not me. WikiLubber (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhh...
Umm... TenPoundHammer has never had administrative access... —  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Boribori! ) 09:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of that, but considering his attitude (acting like he is one) he sure had me fooled. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Trust me, he's tried... several, several times. —  Jeremy  ( v^_^v Boribori! ) 20:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Game Show Congress
I made a cleaned-up, sourced draft in my userspace. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello ChrisP2K5! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Kevin Bannon -
 * 2) Tahesha Way -
 * 3) Vasyl Virastyuk -
 * 4) Joel Meyers -

Floyd Vivino
I've undone; it is pure disruption to revert material that has been specifically requested by the subject, especially since he denies performing there as written, and wishes to protect his privacy. A Wikipedia page is very different from a local restaurant's website. No information on Wikipedia "has" to stay, and we should make allowances for minor pieces of information being removed at request. Please start a discussion on the talk page if you wish to gather further opinions, but please consider that I have more facts available as an OTRS respondant than you do. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 21:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If he wishes to protect his privacy, then he should be bitching more at the restaurant for advertising him being there, both on their website and on the sign above its entrance. I really don't believe that you're his agent or whatever, only here to cause trouble, and I will reiterate the warning you received: if you continue to remove unsourced information, you will be blocked. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)