User talk:Srobak/Archive 1

Linking common terms
Common terms can be linked in articles, but that doesn't mean they should. Linking starts getting out of hand and next thing you know, there is a sea of blue links. For example, sure, you can link the term "United States", but do you honestly think there are many English speakers that don't know what the United States is? Do many English speakers NOT know what New York City is? Linking just because we can doesn't help the article. Linking to a generic article about Miami doesn't really enhance the article about Miami Vice, especially since the majority of people already know what Miami means. But linking to an article to help someone understand what "geospatial" means does enhance an article.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree against making a sea of blue and links - but I really do not think that linking the first instance of Miami in that page specifically would necessarily contribute to that, nor do I think that it completely fall under the aspect of it being so common that it shouldn't be linked. Without the actual city of Miami, there would not be any MV - there is a direct correlation between the two, and Miami's significance in its role in MV is quite substantial in my opinion. If you disagree, fine - we can discuss at length - and/but also at that point I would rather move the discussion to the mv talk page to get other peoples feedback as well. I am all about consensus :) $.02   Srobak (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on user talk page
Hi Srobak, since you mentioned that you would move this to my talk page, I thought I would beat you to the jump :). Seriously, I don't know what the deal is at Skimobile, sled, snowmachine, whateveryouwanttocallit, but leaving a warning/comment at a user's talk page is fine. Once they have read it, they have every right to remove it, or archieve it or whatever.(just as you did with cb's message) To edit war over reinserting it after another editor has removed it as well is not helpful or productive and boarders on distruption. User talk pages are treated slightly differently than main space article talk pages. Anyways, please feel free to respond here since this page is now watchlisted or just...remove it after having read :) (removing it implicitly implies that you have read it fwiw) Thank you and good luck,--Tom (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * While they have every right to remove something from their own talk page - you as a 3rd party to the user talk page and the original comment poster - do not. You have been issued repeated warnings in the past about reversion wars, and more specifically reversion wars on talk pages. Yes they are treated differently - specifically in the sense that they are not generally to be reverted other than by the original author(s). An edit war warning was issued to the user in question, and as the issuer of that warning, I am well within my right to re-affirm it and keep it in place per WP guidelines, as it may be necessary to use as reference for future abuse issues.


 * Case in point, and to that effect: you will also notice that you have been issued an edit war warning as well, as per thethree-revert rule you have conducted 3 destructive reversions in less than 24 hours to the same page. The fact that you did it as a 3rd party to a user talk page only pours salt on that wound. If this conduct does not stop, then I will be forced to open yet another WP:AN/I for you, as has been done in the past. Due to your repeated history and warnings in such matters, there will be no problem in having it enacted. Srobak (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You were earlier advised not to continue to replace the removed warning at User talk:Pierre cb. Users may normally remove warnings from their own talk pages at their discretion. You have continued to re-add the warning:diff. Therefore, if you do so again I will block you from editing to prevent further disruption. CIreland (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * CIreland - see comments above. Valid warning was issued. A 3rd party Tom took it upon themselves to conduct destructive edits to a user talk page in violation of[]and also violate thethree-revert rule. 3rd party edits to user talk pages do not fall within the scope of proper usage, and he has violated both of those repeatedly in the past. I trust you will agree to this and be civil about it. I have followed up with this on your talk page. Srobak (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Miami Vice
Thanks for your help, on the Miami Vice article, though I have a feeling we will both need to keep an eye out on it.El Greco(talk) 17:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed - I have a feeling this is not the last we will hear from him regarding this and other matters. I'm gonna have to be quicker to Noticeboard these things in the future vs. try to prevent random newb edits. Srobak (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I find this comment most disturbing. You should not be trying to "prevent random newb edits", because wedon't bite the newcomers and also you don't WP:OWN the articles you watch.  Instead, you shouldwelcome new users, assume they are trying to help, and engage in polite discussion with them when they have concerns.  Mango juice talk 15:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not the new user trainer on staff today, sorry. While your expectations might be more forgiving in letting new users arbitrarily learn and practice their edits and contributions on long-standing articles - mine are not. When I see an anonymous IP without a user account (new or otherwise) come and delete a LARGE chunk of standing, previously cited information (for years mind you), regardless if the link is dead (beyond the control of ANY editor) and replace it with un-cited information (which his first couple edits were) on a page which I contribute to and repeatedly revert it - then YES, it is gonna get my attention. Other users involved had already advised the user in question to create an account, play in the sandbox and not in live articles, cite the info, yadda yadda. At some point - the burden falls on the anonymous or new user to learn "how to help" and that is what they need to take upon themselves to do.  If this entire deal wouldn't have started out that way then maybe four different standing, contributing editors to that page wouldn't have been blanketly reverting his "contributions". Srobak (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Most interesting. You removed the notice of the 24 hour block you received over your actions and even now, after it's been clearly shown by an Admin that I was both correct and provided the necessary sources which were ignored, thus creating the entire issue, as well as that there was no "vanadalism" or "sockpuppetry", you're still talking about needing to watch things and "prevent newb edits". Perhaps you need to consider first whether the "newb" is correct, and whether you have actually read the info provided as opposed to assuming you have some special dispensation to decide right and wrong. Just a suggestion which you are of course free to ignore.

Have a great day!

FMChimera (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That may be the single longest run-on sentence I have ever read. Yes, I removed the block notice as it no longer pertains. I am free to edit my talk page as I see fit, as are you of yours. Why that is a problem for you is beyond me. Initially, your "newb edits" were just that. As I stated above - at first your massive deletion of standing, cited material and its replacement did not substantiate your claim. I'm sorry - but a random picture of a car on a random discussion forum just doesn't hold water vs. standing, cited article contributions. As Mango addressed to you elsewhere - links to fansites are not prohibited, but using them as points of reference is not good practice.


 * The whole "if it is on the internet then it must be true" approach is exactly the thing that WP is trying to avoid by citing real, valid, and credible sources. If I create a web page on my server stating that grass is pink and then I cite that page in an article about grass and claim it as being factual - that doesn't exactly work, and I don't expect it to.


 * In the end, I am glad that you finally created an account vs. remaining anonymous, dynamic IP - it gives you that much more credibility, nevermind your cites, and you will see it will go a long way to that end on all the articles you contribute to, and I am also thankful for the edits you made with the parts that are tangible, credible sources. So long as that keeps up -then there will not be many issues, with anyone on any article. Srobak (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Theatrical/director's cut
I moved the list on Miami Vice to the talk page. I hadn't see the history prior to the removal (just saw your revert of Darrenhusted (also sent him a notice on the list)), but all of the content is stored on the talk page, if anyone wants to whittle it down. I invite you to comment there for discussing what content should remain. --Happy editing!Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings
Piling on warnings with no additional activity as you did with User_talk:217.44.246.176 is not the way to go about dealing with vandalism. Be patient and assume good faith if the vandal has stopped editing after an initial warning. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Thanks. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The user continued to vandalize the page, after the other wiki user warned them against doing so. Checking the page history and the warning history will reveal this. It is obvious it is a vandalism only account, and it is safe to assume bad-faith in this instance. Please address accordingly, and block the IP.  Copying to your talk page. Srobak(talk) 20:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The IP's last edit was at 19:56 . The warning was placed on the IP talk page at 19:58 .  The warning was left 2 minutes after the IP's last edit.  The IP made no edits after that time.  Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the vandal was scared off by the warning.  I hope that you will remove the v4im message that you left because it was placed inappropriately and that type of warning is not appropriate for simple childish vandalism, but it is intended for serious and blatant vandalism.  -- Mufka (u) (t)(c) 20:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Reviewing the timestamps again, will act accordingly and update. Srobak (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed that is the case. Original user posted warn after 2 different sets of vandal reverts. Thought the warn was in between. 00ps. :)  Reverted my warn Srobak (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Snowmobile
My edits to snowmobile were not vandalism. The last one in particular, which you undid and warned me for vandalism, removed the link to ski-doo in the See also section because it redirects to Bombardier Recreational Products, the very first link in that section. My edit summary was quite clear about this. I'm pretty sure WP:ALSO doesn't allow unnecessary duplication of links. Regardless, all my edits are in good faith.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Upon closer inspection, Bombardier Recreational Products is the second manufacturer listed in See alsosection.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * the existing BRP link is sufficient, though the outright deletion of standing material should be carefully considered in your future edits so as not to be considered vandalism. Please also register an account if you are going to continue participating in WP. Srobak (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Eric Clapton sound files
Hi, problems with their copyright status, in particular the fact that 12 are used in the article, and that there's precious little supporting description in the article text. Are you able to help with determining which ones (probably four) should stay? Tony  (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to your message on my talk page with respect to the three revert rule at User talk:Pierre cb, this is a summary of the recent reversions at that page I am not inclined to block anyone for edit-warring over this issue. I would much rather that, having been told to cease reinstating the warning, you do so. If you wish to pursue further 3RR complaints over this matter you may wish to bear in mind that the only user that has broken the three-revert-rule is yourself. CIreland (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverts by User:Threeafterthree, removing the warning:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APierre_cb&diff=279805599&oldid=279693166
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APierre_cb&diff=279865761&oldid=279805599
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APierre_cb&diff=279998918&oldid=279865761
 * Reverts by User:Srobak, undoing the removal of the warning:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APierre_cb&diff=279802908&oldid=279654620
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APierre_cb&diff=279815413&oldid=279802908
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APierre_cb&diff=279942894&oldid=279815413
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APierre_cb&diff=280006680&oldid=279942894


 * So be it, however I would still like to have the other matter addressed as I noted in your talk page as Tom has a demonstrated history, did conduct talk page edits vs. WP:editing others comments on talk pages, and also consideration given regarding your warning that it was issued due to someone elses violation of WP:editing others comments on talk pages. Feel free to address it on your page as I also noted it there. Thanks Srobak (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

y 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on May 15 2009 to Miami Vice
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. The duration of the block is 24 hours.

Before you say "but I was reverting vandalism", please read WP:3RR.

William M. Connolley (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)