User:StationNT5Bmedia/archive 2

Sources: Non-synchronous transmissions
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration section 13.1.11 New Hampshire Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 2005 Commercial Driver's License Manual section 13, page 13-3 says Double-clutch if vehicle is equipped with non-synchronous transmission also see Driver's Manual for an external link to one of the many sources of information StationNT5Bmedia 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

PTDA
Hi, I've nominated this article for deletion. You may wish to contribute to the debate here. Cheers Kevin 00:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add commercial material to Wikipedia, as you did to PTDI. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please do not vandalise user talk pages, as you did here. It does not befit someone who claims to be a professional writer. Kevin 21:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)This


 * I'm giving you fair warning here, stop placing the blocked template on my talk page. I consider it to be vandalism. Kevin 00:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Zero Tolerance
Wikipedia has a zero tolerance for Vandalism, like User:Kevin1243 has been doing on many topics. I've noticed how this user changes text, then progressively in stages hacks articles, then finally nominates them for deletion. That's vandalism. Placing a user block to prevent them from hacking more of the Wikipedia is administrative. Every user should determine the value of contributions, and the Wikipedia as a source. StationNT5Bmedia 00:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Kevin1243
This is a reply to your posts here and here on my talk page. First off, I have no idea why you are asking me for a outside opinion. But that aside, I'm not going to go through all of Kevin1243's contribution history. If you want to provide specific diff links in question, please do. I think you're upset due to the deletion of PDTA. Calling it SNEEKY VANDALISM (your misspelling) is childish.

Regarding Non-synchronous_transmissions: Looking over Non-synchronous_transmissions (which seems to be the start of all of this) and Talk:Non-synchronous_transmissions I see that you have barely engaged him in any discussion about the article. Back 3 July he suggested a merge with Manual transmission. You removed this tag as your second edit (after he added it) and left a comment on the talk page. The tag does nothing to hurt the article. Its purpose is to generate discussion of weather or not the two articles should be merged. It could stay for weeks if needed. Removing it after 17 minutes accomplished nothing.

Kevin contacted you twice here on 3 July and here on 4 July asking to talk about Non-synchronous_transmissions. You did not leave anything on his talk page until erroneous attempt to "block" him here on 12 July. But I'll talk about this below. You did post to the talk page here on 11 July, but you brought up a different topic.

Back to your edits: Your links to macktrucks, roadranger and coresuppliers are extremely general in relation to the article and quite commercial. (A bit like putting a link to WebMD's main page in an article on say asthma.) If they were to a given manufacturer's work on a specific transmission, that would be more appropriate, but still not the best, as it be a commercial link. Better would be a link to something like a third party firm that covered such machinery - if something like this exists, maybe Consumer Reports? I'm not knowledgeable in this area.

You went on to do several incremental edits. You may want to familiarize yourself with the "Show preview" button. It allows you to see what your changes will look like without committing them. You can work on the article many times and get it just the way you want it before saving it. I often work on things in a text editor before adding them. Jakebrake is a blatant commercial link as above. The link to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is a good one at least in principal.

Kevin then came in with a wikify tag, which is a maintenance tag. You immediately removed this without seeing what an intro paragraph really is. Look at any article. They don't start with a heading. They start with a paragraph that has the article name in bold. Take a look at Glossary and the links on it. (This is also found through a link in the template.) You went on and made incremental edits.

On 9 July User:CZmarlin added a cleanup tag. Again, just a maintenance tag. User:WazzaMan did some clean up. I don't know if the Titanic example is appropriate or not. I know that you certainly don't need to include the actors in it. They just make the article more fuzzy. You took the cleanup tag out on 11 July. The article still needs work. For example, even though it has an intro paragraph, there is a section titled What is a non-synchronous transmission. This question is answered in the intro paragraph. Truckline.com is definitely a link that does not belong and you put it in.

Then Kevin removed the commercial links here. And you put truckline.com right back in here. Followed by the commercial links here. You needn't be so dramatic calling the Titanic example critical. Why not talk about it on the talk page if it is a useful example?

Regarding your edits to Kevin1243's talk page: You repeatedly putting the template on his page is a form of vandalism. (Your use of it is a bit like your "full protection" text on your drafts - it is just is just text that has no underlying mechanism to do what it says.) Only administrators can block other users. And you were using the template for people whose usernames are in conflict with policy, not for things (you perceive) they have done. I must say I do find this comment rather brazen of you considering our exchanges here, here, and especially here.

Going to Jimbo's page shows an lack of understanding. Mr. Wales is far to busy to look into every spat between two editors.

While I can understand you contacting me, I had no idea why you contacted Mike Dillion until I see that he corrected categories in two of your draft articles. But coming to someone like that you've not even said "hello" to and then basically tattling on someone else and trying to get support is rather odd. (I have things to say about your drafts, but that will wait until I really feel like it.)

Regarding your assumption of other Kevin1243s on the internet: You know what you do when you assume, don't you? Your own username is quite unique, however Kevin's is not. Nor is mine, now that I googled it. But the only EarthPerson that I use is here on Wikipedia. I'm not the one on answers.com, nor the one on the Australian Kawasaki Riders Forum, nor any of the others out there. This is the only me at present.

Kevin says he is not the fellow from facebook. Going to the Administrators' noticeboard was a bit excessive, especially since you made such wild accusations. You should have looked at request for comment as Kevin suggested. Or you should have talked to him first. (I've never used RFC myself, but I've never been in this situation.)

I left you a message when I reverted one of your more journalistic edits a while back. You may not have noticed it since it was in the edit summary. You can view it in the history of your talk page. It was "I suggest you go to Adopt-A-User and look for someone there to help you". Please don't ask me to adopt you. I have no interest in mentoring anyone for an extended period of time. As it is, I've used up far too much of my own time on this. Please don't make me feel like I've wasted it. Talk to Kevin1243. Talk to other editors, learn what consensus is, and learn to contribute in a reasonable manner. Thanks. --EarthPerson 20:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)