User talk:DreamMcQueen

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, DreamMcQueen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for WNET. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WFSB

Hi, I've reverted your edits to WFSB, since you provided no reliable sources for the claims made in your edit. In addition, per WP:NAMEPEOPLE, you must create an article for everyone in a list of names before adding them to the list. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at WFSB. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was the one who deleted the History section, becuase it does not have any information about how the station was created, built, run and entirely staffed by Chuck Norris. Don't you find that incredible? I DO!
Okay, now that you see how absurd that is: I cut out everything that was unreferenced... because it was unreferenced. You can't just add it back in without citations. Please let me know if you want to discuss this further or have any questions. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHIO-TV

Hello, DreamMcQueen. You have new messages at Talk: WHIO-TV.
Message added 09:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Chaswmsday (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like It Is (public affairs program)‎

Hello. Thanks for your work on Like It Is.

I just wanted to point out that you should mark edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor".

Thanks again, — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited WWFS, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WNEW (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Jacor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KTLK (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"n"

Please note that all the Veolia schedules use little "n"'s, not capital "N"'s. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The letter may be in a lower-case on the schedule, but I don't think that should be taken literally. Look closely at the text and you'll notice the use of upper-case "N"s as well. I much prefer going back to the upper-case, as it keeps in line with the other services. DreamMcQueen (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saw the buses in action today, and there is no lower-case "n" on any of them. Thus, the upper-case "N" should be restored. DreamMcQueen (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Rosa Parks Hempstead Transit Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baldwin, New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Tribune Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tabloid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited George Michael (sportscaster), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadcaster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited WLS (AM), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Watts and The Loop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.

Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis[1][2], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=89886934 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal. As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Derek Wheeler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canadian television (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WBAL-TV

Please stop edit-warring and take your concerns to the talk page to reach consensus before moving further. Also, using an IP to get around the 3RR rule is, in fact, against the rules. Please only use your sign-in account when editing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Research Participation Barnstar
For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WICU

Please provide a clarification on specific reason(s) why my edit to the article was reverted. Just saying "unneeded changes" is too vague and should be explained. Also, I spent a few days updating the sections (as I am now doing for WSEE-DT2) and do not feel a revert was necessary unless you provide exact issues and/or suggestions. As mentioned above for WBAL, using an article's talk page along with consulting its history page is the best way to reach agreements about what edits should be made. Feel free to look at my other edits i.e WFFF, WENY, WZVN, KESQ to see similar changes as WICU and WSEE. Strafidlo (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regards to List of CBS television affiliates (table)

Hello there. I am sending this to you to ask why you keep reverting my edits on the above mentioned article. I created it so people could get to the info on the CW stations and indies more quickly. You DID realize that the NBC and FOX lists also have this as well. WE NEED TO STOP EDIT WARRING. Thank you! Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 00:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TALKBACK!

Hello, DreamMcQueen. You have new messages at Fairlyoddparents1234's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 18:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DreamMcQueen. You have new messages at Neutralhomer's talk page.
Message added 04:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 04:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and another. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, DreamMcQueen. You have new messages at Fairlyoddparents1234's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 20:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "List of CBS television affiliates (table), List of ABC television affiliates (table)". Thank you. --Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 21:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there.....

Can you please explain clearly WHY you had to remove the CBS Television Stations link on the [[List of CBS television affiliates (table)? You realize links like these still appear on List of Fox television affiliates (table) (Telemundo) and List of Fox television affiliates (table). Why haven't you removed those links as well? Also, keep the DMAs on the ABC and CBS page because are still on the FOX and NBC lists. If you hate me, go ahead and remove them. I know you hate me. Go and blast it into my talk page! (sob....) Oh and BTW, check out my edits for U.S. television network affiliate switches of 1994. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 00:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, nice job vandalizing the FOP wiki. [3] Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 18:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRN discussion reopened

Though I previously closed it, I have reopened the listing at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_CBS_television_affiliates_.28table.29.2C_List_of_ABC_television_affiliates_.28table.29 due to the objection of another volunteer at DRN. Please resume proceedings there. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attention:

QUOTE: Can you please do me a favor and LEAVE ME ALONE. Your cries for attention are almost as ridiculous as your user name. DreamMcQueen (talk) 01:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC) The above is considered a talk page attack as per the second sentence, STRONGLY NOT ALLOWED HERE. Please avoid such insults or else I WILL REPORT YOU TO THE ADMINS! Thank you. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 14:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WHY WHY WHY WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I need answers from you NOW!

Tell me why you want to torture me. Why can't we just settle this with a calm discussion ClubPengiunDark/ Lightning McQueen?!?! I need answers from you now! I will keep sending you messages like these until you clearly tell me why you decided to remove the CBS Television Stations link from the CBS affiliates table. And WHY did you have to remove the DMA nimbers from the CBS and ABC tables when they are still on List of NBC television affiliates (table) and List of Fox television affiliates (table)? Why can't remove those as well?! I am so sick and tired of having to deal with you! If you're pissed of me too, why don't you BAN ME?!?!?! I want you to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 18:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please just have a discusson?

We nee to talk on settling our feud with each other. We can't choose edit warring, that is against WP policies. Unless you're of course, a heartless scum-filled vandal who wants to ruin Wikipedia and the lives of Wikipedians. And by the way, calling my user name ridiculous is also against policies. Repeated user harassment may cause you to be blocked and even worse, banned. Thank you. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 19:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited St. John Chrysostom's Church (Bronx, New York), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort Apache (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, do I feel bad for you

The Purple Barnstar
I happened to stumble across you and... wow. Just wow. Your recent encounters with one particular editor on here have been just gruesome. I can only hope that this will ease some of the pain. Let me know if there's anything I can do. Rotorcowboy talk
contribs 09:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...

Hi there. I've been noticing you've been removing the DMA numbers from several affiliate lists. Can you please point out which talk page thread lead you to do this? And please be calm, nice, an say your "please" and "thank you"s. Thanks. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 11:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, DreamMcQueen. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding editing practices. The thread is [[{{{Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance}}}#Fairlyoddparents1234 v. DreamMcQueen: Edit warring|Fairlyoddparents1234 v. DreamMcQueen: Edit warring]]. Thank you.

Please read....

This is the last message I will ever send to you. I promise you dirty rotten no-hearted Wikipedian. You have done enough to make me go up the wall. Why can't you answer a request from me and other editors? Why can't you use dispute resolution to settle conflicts just like right now at WP:WQA? And why can't you practise some civility here? You have no respect for me, I have no respect for you. Simple. This is THE LAST STRAW. Piss me off via edit war or any other method and I WILL IMMEDIATELY REPORT YOU TO AN ADMINISTRATOR AT ALL MEANS!!!!!!! You've been warned. And don't you even dare respond to this at my talk page. Don't you dare get me hot or else you will find yourself hanged above the flames of WP Admin Hell! Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 00:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is none of my business, but can I just-- can I say something real quick? Thanks. DreamMcQueen, I can see where Fairlyoddparents1234 is coming from. You have reverted quite a few of his edits, offering no or an insufficient edit summary. With the amount of editing and reverting you do, you should provide an edit summary and definitely need to explain why a user's edits are unhelpful. I would also like to remind you to not take ownership of articles. I know this may not be your intent, but no single editor or group of editors owns any article. There is a difference between substantially contributing and assuming ownership, so please take care to avoid that.
Now then, Fairlyoddparents1234, I believe that DreamMcQueen has formally warned you to stop talking to him/her, but you ignored it. This should have made it clear to you to never contact him/her again, but you persisted. DMQ has already declared "the last straw", so adding more to it will only make you appear foolish. It doesn't matter whether or not you two are involved in an edit dispute; other editors can help sort that out, if not do it for you. The fact that there is an active dispute does not justify issuing personal attacks against another editor (as in, "...you will find yourself hanged above the flames of WP Admin Hell!"). Simply linking to WP:Civility multiple times will not in itself act as evidence that the recipient was uncivil, nor will it grant you immunity from being declared uncivil. On a linking pages note, I would like to direct you to WP:CAPSLOCK. You may or may not have already known this, but typing in all upper case does not support your argument and is quite frankly rather annoying. You have claimed that DMQ has violated the 3-revert rule, but I have yet to see that s/he did. Perhaps you should read up on WP:3RR and recognize that it only applies to a period of less than 24 hours. Although discouraged, a single editor can revert three or more times within a period of greater than 24 hours. I don't care if you are young, have a mental or medical condition, are frustrated, or simply have a sticky keyboard; there is no excuse for your behavior toward DreamMcQueen lately. You are seeking resolution, but you seem to want compensation more than anything. You have taken a bad thing and made it worse by setting this conflict ablaze. You need to know when to be the bigger man and put your cause to rest. Myself, I would rather deny the bit than stand on my haunches to get it. I am beginning to believe that you are seeking the last word in this, so I will give it to you. You may reply here, but do not take this to my talk page. You were not welcome here, so don't think for a minute that you are welcome on mine. Please say whatever you need to say and cease all contact with DreamMcQueen. (DMQ, I advise you to let FOP have the last word and move on with your editing and life. I don't see you ending this dispute by talking.) Rotorcowboy talk
contribs 05:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

List of CBS television affiliates (table)

Do not, under any circumstances, remove any hidden notices as you have done here. DMAs are NOT allowed per an OTRS ticket and a DCMA takedown. If you have an issue with that, you need to take that up with legal, otherwise, the hidden notice stands. Don't remove it again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are beyond 3RR at that page. This is your 3RR warning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously?: 1, 2, and 3. Don't do it again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Re: July 2012

Before stating that someone should write a certain way and questioning that a user's edits are being done in an unconstructive manner, it is worth noting that it is the editor's choice as to how their Wikipedia editing style should be, as long as their changes fall within the site's editing guidelines. My early edits on the site had an admittedly fair to mediocre grammatical style in my early years as a Wikipedia user, however I improved my style in the last couple of years (partly from my own tendency to use decent grammar, and learning from the styles of other editors). In addition, the stop warning I placed on your talk page was done in a civil manner and not "threatening", but was rather a objective and inoffensive notice about your conduct, and other users have cited you as being disruptive and intimidating (to the point where one user stated that you redirected their talk page on June 24 and a comment you made on that same day on said talk page had to be removed due to violating WP personal attack rules). If the contributions have are intended to improve the article quality, other users may not share the same view as you if you disagree with the changes, reverts have to be made with just cause as disagreements between two users may result in the engagement of an edit war and one or both parties in said war being blocked from making future edits under the the three-revert rule.

One thing you noted in the response is a prior message regarding the return of The Arsenio Hall Show, claiming if it was necessary to list every station that has secured carriage of the revived program in September 2013. You twice removed that edit claiming this as unencyclopedic and constituting as fancruft. However, both times the section regarding the revived Arsenio program was expanded did not mention all stations set to carry the show; in fact, the second attempt at expanding the edit only mentioned that Tribune Company had priority carriage of the show over CBS-owned CW, MyNetworkTV and Independent stations in six markets where both companies owned a station. It was reverted due to a false perception that it was fancruft, when the accompanying reference from Broadcasting & Cable regarding the revival mentioned this particular fact, making it worth noting. So it does not apply under either claim.

In regards to the comment about the sentence structure of the lead sections as being "overly technical", the Wikiproject Television Stations section regarding article structure explcitly states that TV station articles are required to have "a good introduction", information on "what kind of programming the station airs" and "other relevant and verifiable facts about the station" (transmitter and studio locations fall under this generae). How myself as well as Neutralhomer and Strafidlo structure our edits in intros falls is not overly technical (it would classify as such if actual technical information such as what type of mast the transmitter has, how much power it emits or how tall it is were included, though everything mentioned in that example is covered by the broadcast station Infobox template), but is informative enough without being too long or short, and fits within Wikipedia's Manual of Style requirements for lead sections. It is not uncommon for articles on Wikipedia have lead sections consisting of two or more long paragraphs.

As you are a relatively new user (having apparently joined the site as a registered user at the beginning of the year), before you make any further edits that other users may disagree with or responding to talk pages if you disagree with another user's changes (that may eventually lead to additional edit wars, if handled with improper conduct), please acquaint yourself with the following information on Manual of Style, Accepting other users, Negotiation, Civility, Dispute resolution, Revert only when necessary, No personal attacks and Candor. And always assume that edits that are made to an article are done in good faith (except those that are clearly done with malicious intent, such as vandalism). TVtonightOKC (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KMBC-TV

If you edit war on any page again, you will be taken to ANI. I am tired of dealing with your behavior. Shape up or be shipped out. This is your only warning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather call this a simple disagreement in editing styles. And, I'd also advise you against using harsh, threatening messages such as this one. DreamMcQueen (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is no longer a disagreement, it is a continued and blatant violation of Wikipedia policy and you are doing it with multiple editors. Right now, you aren't in a position to advise me on anything. Follow the rules, that's it. No more excuses, just follow the rules. You aren't getting anymore chances. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't in a position to advise anyone yourself. I've checked your history and it's not exactly clean either, with your past aggressiveness and bullying (yes, I went THERE). So don't you dare threaten me. DreamMcQueen (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have a block log, you're point? You can either follow the rules or you can have your very own block log too. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your guys edits to the KMBC-TV. I think DreamMcQueen version is better, although there are few small things in it that need to be fixed. Powergate92Talk 06:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the endorsement, Powergate. If you have suggestions then I'm open to listen. DreamMcQueen (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I think DreamMcQueen version is better is because it removes unneeded info and is written in a better way. Powergate92Talk 06:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

In accordance with the rules, this is to advise you of a thread on ANI regarding your behavior. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some issue that prevents you from following directions, specifically to stop edit-warring? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Crouch

You keep reverting the rewritten article for Matt Crouch. The original article was very outdated and contained incorrect information on certain details. It was in need of an update. Please explain why you keep reverting this article so that we can find consensus.63.96.80.66 (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

If you edit war, on any page, again, you will start receiving vandalism warnings. I am tired of dealing with you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the feeling is mutual. I won't stand for your bullying and trash talk, it means nothing to me. We'll settle our beef in other ways. DreamMcQueen (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DreamMcQueen, there is no "bullying", and there is no "trash talk". Neutralhomer is simply enforcing Wikipedia policy that you have blatantly violated multiple times (and continue to violate). This is not a dispute, this is an incident involving a single user: you. Gold Standard 22:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I humbly disagree with you, Gold Standard. This is a case of certain editors severely overreacting when another user "invades" their "territory". I'm honestly not instigating an edit war. Neutralhomer is attempting to intimidate and bully me, and I will not stand for it. DreamMcQueen (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have an outsider's perspective. I do not edit in the same areas as you, but the diffs don't lie. You blatantly deleted hidden warning messages and edit warred multiple times. You ignore all calls for civility and are aggressive towards other editors. Gold Standard 02:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing as discussed here on ANI. The most concerning of these issues is your WP:BATTLE behavior. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions, however if this behavior resumes you will be re-blocked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2012 (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).

DreamMcQueen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not had the opportunity to fully explain my side of the story. I was not given a chance to respond to the ANI filed against me by Neutralhomer, who I believe is attempting to intimidate and bully me for purely personal reasons. Contrary to the claims made against me I have not violated WP:OWN, as there are other users who are taking ownership of articles which I am working on improving. I am not engaging in "battle"-like behavior, as I have seeking opinions for an issue I think is important and was completely dismissed by one editor. I am requesting that this block be lifted so I can respond to the ANI notice and have the opportunity to explain my actions.DreamMcQueen (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your continued arguing this point indicates that the reason for this block has not fully set in. 24 hours is a good cooling off period. I suggest you use it to consider your actions (regardless of what anyone else might have done) and hopefully realize that you don't need to "prove" anything. You just need to get along when you agree, try to reach consensus when you don't, and accept it and move along when consensus doesn't go your way. -- Selket Talk 02:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You were notified of the thread two days ago but chose not to reply. Your behavior continued, you were blocked and the thread closed. You certainly did have "a chance to respond". Why should you be unblocked to discuss the issue now that you've been blocked? Toddst1 (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, some of us have a life outside of Wikipedia to tend to. Secondly, I wanted to cool myself off before I responded to the ANI. Thirdly, to my understanding there is no time limit given to respond to an ANI. Dealing with an editor I view to be arrogant and another who unfairly thought I was picking on them is quite a bit to deal with for one plate. DreamMcQueen (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's very informative and good. With this block, you no longer have that much to deal with for one plate and unlike the rest of us (without lives), you are now free do other things for the next 24 hours.
For what it's worth, it appears that you are confusing WP:OWN with WP:CONSENSUS - something very important here. Toddst1 (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The block remains unfair. I am asking that it be lifted so I can speak for myself and prove that this is much ado about nothing. And no, I am not confusing anything. Ownership and consensus are two distinct things. I was (and still am) seeking consensus for what I am proposing. Editors wanting to keep status quo practice ownership and arrogantly dismiss any and all attempts to advance forward. DreamMcQueen (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be doing - in opposition to consensus a whole lot more than seeking consensus. Your idea of advance appears to be another editor's (or other editors') idea of disruption. That's a big chunk of why you are blocked. You appear to want to improve the project, but you're going about it with the cooperative attitude of a howitzer. Not constructively engaging in conversations like the one at ANI and all of those before that along with responding to other editors with things like "bring it on" just will not work here. See WP:BATTLE. Toddst1 (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked for more of the same issues

As prescribed in the closing comments on ANI, I have reblocked you for continuing the disruptive behavior that led to your previous block . Your continued attempts to WP:OWN articles like Tribune Company and others remains unacceptable. This block is for much longer than the previous one. If this behavior continues after this block expires, your next block will likely be indefinite. Toddst1 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1: I looked at the the article histories Neutralhomer linked on your talk page,[4][5][6][7][8] and I don't see any edit warring. What I do see is DreamMcQueen reverting of unsourced info[9][10] (most likely per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research), reverting of outdated and unneeded info,[11][12] (the reference that says Tribune was under pressure to sell the Times is from 2006), reverting of non-neutral and unneeded info[13] per WP:Neutral point of view, reverting of info that does need to be in a table and saying he would add a footnote for it,[14][15] and then adding a footnote for it.[16][17] With that, all these reverts are constructive not disruptive. Therefore, this block should be invalid. Powergate92Talk 03:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that, Powergate. But it looks like Toddst1 is gonna make me sweat this one out. DreamMcQueen (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And, to Drmies: Yes I edited the Tribune Company article. But sorry to disappoint you, but I was not engaging in "edit-warring." The above comment left by Powergate92 on my behalf (and the evidence attached to it) proves my point.
Having said that, I have no problem avoiding Fairlyoddparents1234. He/she attempted to bully me a while back and left highly aggressive comments on this talk page and other places and I did my best to practice civility and ignore them. And this may sound cruel, but Fairlyoddparents' issue with Aspergers is not my problem. I understand that there are plenty of users who have that affliction, but to me it means they should be that much more careful with how they interact with and react towards others -- even more so in a forum such as this where we communicate with each other only with words. I do not and cannot have any sympathy for him/her.
Overall, editors and admins around these parts are way too sensitive and quick with the hammer. This mentality needs to change. DreamMcQueen (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disappointed. Powergate's argument does not convince me, and Toddst1 and I have a bit more experience than Powergate does. I am not troubled, BTW, by your side in that argument (outside of the edit-warring), nor do I think that we ought to be concerned with their affliction. That's not to say I don't care as a human (and I'm sure you feel the same way), but it's not a matter we should have to deal with; I said as much on their talk page. I asked you to try and stay away from them not because I thought you were somehow at fault in your interaction with them; in fact, you practiced, from what I could tell, considerable coolness. That admins are too quick with the blocks, well, so you say. Your block will soon be over, and I hope I don't run into you again in my capacity as an admin. Happy editing (shortly), Drmies (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2012 (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).

DreamMcQueen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If you read between the lines, I have been making constructive contributions to the articles which I have been editing, and not edit warring as Neutralhomer claims. And I have not engaged in any back-and-forth incivility with anyone since the last block. I ask that this unwarranted ridiculous block be lifted so I can continue to edit constructively. I also request to have my case reviewed by another administrator, someone who I feel will be more willing to hear both sides without bias. And, one more thing: you call this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KWGN-TV&diff=503967984&oldid=503906393) vandalism? Fairlyoddparents1234 called it vandalism and reverted it. I was in the middle of actually IMPROVING and VERIFYING the KWGN-TV article when I was suddenly blocked. This once again proves to me that the block is unfair. DreamMcQueen (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The moment you realize (and then acknowledge) that at the very least you were edit-warring again at Tribune Company I don't mind unblocking you. But let me give you some advice. You were blocked for the right reasons (I agree with the blocking admin); arguing that you were right anyway is not productive. First of all, edit-warring is edit-warring even if you're right. Second, if you were right then the blocking admin is wrong--but the ANI discussion was pretty clear, and if I agree with the blocking admin then by the same logic you can't be right. Now, I've dropped that opponent of yours a note to say they should leave you alone; you'd be well-advised to do the same. I'll check in here every now and then to see if you wish to respond. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

ANI (#2)

You have been taken to ANI due to your continued edit-warring and behavior, you will find the thread here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Personal attacks and ANI and returning to a contentious editing style, per your last two blocks.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintaining your attitude that the other editors with Asbergers are deficient and it should be taken under consideration in an ANI is offensive and shows a remarkable amount of intolerance and ignorance. Your refusal to strike those comments and maintain the personal attack can not be overlooked, as we do not discriminate nor do we tolerate personal attacks here. I feel I have been exceptionally generous in this block, using the least amount of time possible to prevent disruption. Very likely, your next block will be indef. In any admin thinks I have been entirely too generous, I will leave it to their discretion to modify the block. Just leave me a note afterwards, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, this is bullshit. Tried to do it twice, but now I'm really done with this place. Most of the users are just sheep and the inmates are running the asylum. Even worse, you are guilty until proven innocent. Not a democracy, not cooperation. Not the place for me. I have a life, I know I'm a damn good writer and I'll find a place where my abilities and hard work is appreciated. Screw Wikipedia, goodbye forever. DreamMcQueen (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy.. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger One ping only 03:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of trying to appeal this block, like I said this is bullcrap. You all can have this place, I wish you well. DreamMcQueen (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC) (formerly known as Rollosmokes - since I'm done here, it might as well be told)[reply]
I believe you, and stated as much at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rollosmokes where I clerk. You need to log into that account to that account to communicate (or don't), as this is now an indef sockpuppet account and will not be unblocked. Talk page access revoked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Thomastgoldsmith1984-1.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thomastgoldsmith1984-1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:WLNY TV logo 2012.jpg

Notice

The file File:WLNY TV logo 2012.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]