User talk:Ardenn

Read BEFORE Posting:

• Vandalism and other offensive commentary/trolling will be deleted expeditiously.
• If you want me to respond/take your comments seriously, sign them with ~~~~.
• Be sure to be signed in. Anonymous users will have their messages deleted without comment.
• I will respond on your talk page, but I will not return to your talk page after that unless you've responded on my talk page. Sounds convoluted, but I'd rather be editing articles than reading your talk page.
• Add your comments to the bottom of the page.
• If you don't agree with a change that I've made to an article, please let me know nicely and I will address the issue.
  

Welcome!

Hello, Ardenn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  karmafist 21:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: your reverts to CIVI, CFPL, CKNX, CHRO, and CHWI

Ardenn, recently you reverted a useful edit by 72.60.128.187 in the article on CIVI-TV. Following up on that change, I noticed that you had in fact proceeded to bulk-revert all of that same editor's additions to five different A-Channel stations. While you are correct in stating that the sale of CHUM assets to Bell hasn't completed yet, it does not invalidate the information about the sale. Those edits were relevant to the respective articles, and should not have been removed en masse. Please use caution in future before pursuing such actions. Thanks! --Ckatz 04:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the unnecessary reverts on these pages. There is no need to undo this editor's work. Thank you. --Ckatz 04:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"The sale of CHUM is irrelevant to the individual stations. The only article it belongs in is perhaps the main A-Channel and CHUM articles. I will revert it, because of the above."(Ardenn, replying on my talk page)

It is definitely relevant to the individual stations, as they are directly affected by this change. Trust me, as someone who has worked in media for the better part of two decades, "who owns you" is very relevant. Besides, you're now continually reverting information that two editors (at least) agree is important. The proper course of action would be to discuss the issue on a talk page, probably at A-Channel (or somewhere similar). Cheers. --Ckatz 04:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Pursuant to this discussion (and to stop it from degenerating) I'm posting a note at A-Channel to initiate a discussion about this information. Hopefully, that will help to resolve things. Cheers. --Ckatz

"The other guy doesn't count. He's not registered. For all I know, he's you." (Ardenn, replying on my talk page)

Please, Ardenn, don't do this. Let's resolve this peacefully, okay? --Ckatz 04:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"In 24 hours, I'll be reverting your edits." (Ardenn, replying on my talk page)

I've no interest in playing games with Wiki rules, Ardenn. I've asked - quite nicely, I think - that we take this to a discussion. What do you have against that course of action? --Ckatz 04:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"I'll agree that who owns you is important, but the transaction isn't complete. Right now, it's only speculation. The CRTC may say no." (Ardenn, replying on my talk page)

"Speculation" is a bit of an understatement - yes, the CRTC may overturn the deal, but it probably will go through in some form. Regardless of the outcome, however, just the fact that the deal is pending is of direct relevance to each and every station. Furthermore, someone reading up on their local station may not click through to the main articles - but they still could stand to know about what is proposed. --Ckatz 04:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a request for comment here and a call for discussion here to get some outside input on this matter. I would appreciate it if you could hold off on resuming your reversions to these articles so that there is sufficient time to allow people to comment. This is, I feel, a reasonable request. Thank you. --Ckatz 05:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Help me

See User talk:Tawker -- Samir धर्म 05:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. He didn't even have the decency to let me know about the block. Ardenn 05:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd refrain from saying you'll revert changes in 24 hours though. I agree that is gaming 3RR. Don't think it's worth a block in my opinion, but it's not really a wise thing to say. -- Samir धर्म 05:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a 31 hour block. I checked the log. As I said, he didn't have the decency to tell me. Ardenn 05:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I will e-mail Tawker -- Samir धर्म 05:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is a block message, I think I explained it in there. Per "In 24 hours, I'll be reverting your edits. Ardenn 04:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)" it leads me to strongly believe that you were attempting to game the 3RR system instead of discussing and reaching a compromise. While I agree it is not vandalism that one comment, and that comment alone led to this block which I believe was justified at the time. I'm taking another look at the edits in question and will take another look -- Tawker 06:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)