Hi - I've just speedy-deleted Georgia-media-stub. There is no need for another geography stub template (we already have {{geo-stub}}), and the name you chose for it was so inappropriate that it was bordeing on nonsense. If what you were intending was a stub about Georgia media, then you would have been better off going through the standard procedures and proposing it at WP:WSS/P (which is where new stub types are debated prior to creation). To be honest, though, given that it would not be likely to fit in with the hierarchy of stub types, I doubt it will gain much support. Grutness...wha?00:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will you pleas stop marking articles as stubs that are not stubs. Several articles regarding stations in New York and in Philadelphia you have marked as stubs which provide enough content and context toreaders as not to present the articles as stube. You might want to look at WP:Stub, regarding the stubbing of pages. --Boothy443 | trácht ar06:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, your deletion of commas in the Nashville TV articles are unnecessary. Commas are there for a reason. Please visit a second grade class and learn the rules of grammar before you delete commas. --Zpb5206:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add any stub templates to any Wikipedia articles that are larger than 10 sentences. You can read Wikipedia:Stub to learn more about the stub templates and why they are used. They are only for short articles. Articles such as KNBC and WFTC are too large to have stub templates added to them. BlankVerse10:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, do not place stubs on long articles and for that matter, do not place categories where they are unnecessary. I have reverted some of your recent edits, and I hope that you pay attention to what is said by others in the edit summaries, otherwise, your edits will continue to be reverted. We're only trying to help you, so please pay attention, otherwise, you will continued to be labeled as someone who doesn't pay attention to what others say. ErikNY20:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ben. We appreciate your enthusiasm, but your recent edits to
Squares weren't so good.
The correct term for a syndicated TV show is "in syndication", not "on syndicated." Your term implies a channel named Syndicated. I've changed this twice and hope you'll understand why.
Also, please don't unneccesarily wikify dates (that is a practice that is being discouraged on Wikipedia and only serves to distract), and leave ordinal numbers (first, second, third, et al.) spelled out rather than turning them into numbers.
I've noticed your additions and/or edits are sloppy, poorly worded, and in most cases, redundant and innacurate. This counts as vandalism.
For example, WDCA-TV in Washington is not a "flagship" station of UPN. It was, when it was owned by Viacom/CBS, but is no longer since it was sold to Fox/News Corp. in 2002. You also reworded several portions of WTXX, WCTX, and WTNH-TV that were unnecessary and redundant, as I may have noted in my comments when I reverted and editied those entries.
Please stop vandalizing these articles. Rollosmokes 23:16, 21 March 2006
(UTC)
UPDATE: You have vandalized more television articles, specifically WATL and WBDC, and I have corrected your changes once again. If you keep doing this, I will fix you every time. Rollosmokes07:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The {{TVQ}} and {{FMQ}} templates expect the simple call letters (i.e. {{TVQ|WFYI}} not {{TVQ|WFYI-TV}}). These templates generate a url for querying the FCC database, and will generate an invalid url if not fed the simple call letters. --rogerd04:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems you have yet again made edits to broadcasting articles and making edits that don't always make sense. I have reverted you on several of these edits, and others have done the same on some of your other edits. Please do not make these edits again, as you have been warned in the past. --WCQuidditch☎✎00:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. -Whomp22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making the changes to the TV stations until you talk to either myself or another admin. Some of your edits are being viewed as inappropriate, and I would like to discuss them with you. You seem to have a good understanding of the technical side of wikipedia, and I would hate to see you get banned before having an opportunity to smooth over the rough edges. Sue Anne00:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the last several months, I have corrected or just plain reverted your TV articles. Lots of edits that you have made are totally useless, sometimes false. You use grammar and spelling at an early elementary school level. We tell you how to do things right, even stop, but you refuse to listen to us.
We are watching you like a hawk -- anything you change, we will correct or change back. While Wiki can be edited by anyone, this is an encyclopedia, so some sort of professionalism is expected. --azumanga00:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Ben does it again, taking stations in three markets and trashing them with his nonsense. Even poor Nipsey Russell was a victim. He never listens to us. I doubt he even reads this talk page. Whoever bans Ben will be a hero. azumanga23:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am terribly sorry I have to say this, but I'm afraid I agree with everything that has been said. By the way, I note you have just edited WITF-TV, indicating that, alas, you have not stopped. Again, I am sorry I had to say this, but it's the only thing I can tell you. --WCQuidditch☎✎01:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And he still hasn't stopped -- as of 10:20PM 6/25, he's now mangling the Hampton Roads stations. I wonder if he's doing this because we're watching him? If so, he's just playing with fire. And Benny -- if you're reading this, stop now or you're done. azumanga02:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reversed everything he did this time around -- get a load of WOLO-TV("ABC Columbia" is "NBC 25") and WZRB (the "RB", according to Benny, means "RoBerts", not "Roberts Broadcasting"; also, per him, CW is still a go on 9/4 (it's now 9/18)). How soon until he's banned?
I also noticed that Benny has yet to give his side of the story on the RfC page. Personally, his silence over all of this is proof that he's guilty. Benny, if you have anything to say about this, now is the time. (P.S. -- I made the reversals of thye Columbia stations -- I forgot to sign my message.) azumanga00:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, according to Benny, NET started in 1962, not 1952 (as NET's srticle states); prior to 1962, all ETV stations were "educational independents", and they must be accepted into NET and PBS. And, all network affiliates use the network name and channel number as branding, and all O&Os are flagships, not just the ones where the networks are based in. azumanga03:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you make any more edits without engaging on Talk pages or responding to the RfC then I will block you for disruption. You cannot fail to be aware that what you are doing is not appreciated. Just zis Guy you know?15:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against disruption. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself should almost never be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator.Just zis Guy you know?09:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Want to be Unblocked from WIKIPEDIA (69. 68.95.195)
This blocked user (block log) asked to be unblocked. The reason given was: . JzG has reviewed this request and declined to unblock the account. The reason for declining was: Disruption. Will unblock when he engages in debate Administrators: you may also review this block, and unblock (unblock link) this user.; see blocking policy. Blocked editor: your unblock request continues to be visible. Please don't replace this message with another unblock request. Thank you.
I Want to Apologize for the unfair Violation you put up to block me for life and I'm unable to understand the information of TV Stations in the United States. JzG, Don't Be mean & strict to me and please get rid of the Blocked Pages and let me continue user WIKIPEDIA forever. Now please give a chance to use WIKIPEDIA to fix the errors and let use it again as your user.
BenH, you comment above is barely coherent. Are you saying that you would now be prepared to participate in the request for comment, and that you will not edit any other articles until that process is complete? And that you will respect consensus? Absent these assurances, you stay blocked. Just zis Guy you know?18:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me translate:
I Want to apologize for what I did to get blocked. I'm unable to understand the information of TV stations in the United States. JzG, don't be mean and strict to me, and please unblock me, and let me continue to use WIKIPEDIA. Now please give me a chance to use WIKIPEDIA to fix the errors.
Ben, Fixing the errors is not necessary, that has been done. What I need is a categorical assurance that you will, if unblocked, leave the articles alone, start by discussing on Talk pages, and in particular, take part in the RfC. Once I have those assurances I will unblock you. Just zis Guy you know?21:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
fixed unblock template. If anything User:JzG should reduce the block since justifying indef blocks usually lead to block evasion.
Indefinite does not mean permanent, it just means until Ben shows willingness to work in a properly collaborative manner. As soon as he gives that assurance, in an unambigous way, he can be unblocked. Just zis Guy you know?15:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone considered that the user might have some sort of mental disability? He hasn't said anything in his defense along those lines (in fact hasn't said anything much at all), but if true it's unfortunate, but either way the block must stay. Danski1401:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears obvious that BenH has no intention of debating ... a suspected sock of his was active as late as March 20. This calls for a community ban. It seems like one's already in place--but just in case, I proposed one at WP:CN. Blueboy9618:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to restart a conversation that ended two years ago on a user nobody has any plans to unblock in this eon? Please, knock it off. Nate•(chatter)04:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
