User talk:Marksteiner

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I have read each of the policy pages listed above.

1. You are in error about Wikipedia policy concerning editing by persons who have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia policy clearly states that editors with a conflict of interest may edit articles provided that such persons identify themselves in a way that makes their position and thus their conflict clear to others. I complied fully with this requirement by identifying myself as owner and licensee of the station at all times. You will find no one who claims that they did not know the source of any edit which I made to the WHDT article.

2. I just provided a source (a web-based one, at that) which demonstrates that WHDT is in fact broadcasting to the public. This is one of many available sources of information which demonstrate that the WHDT article contained a factual error. It does not matter if "millions" of Wikipedia articles are verified by on-line sources. Such sources do not meet any known legal standard for verification are are thus by definition "low quality" sources. My statement about the need to test an (outrageous) asserted claim against legally attributable sources is a valid one. That fact that I rely on legal and binding source documents from government agencies is neither a reason for continuing to block user WHDT, nor is it even relevant to include here as a proffered comment.

3. When there are factual errors in a Wikipedia article which adversely affect a "living person", it is Wiki policy to raise the standard of proof needed. As both the licensee and engineer of the station, I personally must certify in every FCC filing for WHDT, under penalty of perjury, that the station is operating in accordance with its license. The false claims which were inserted into the WHDT article are a blatant attack on my personal as well as professional integrity. As a "living person" Wikipedia policy appears to support my right to remove this material. This right is clearly called out in Wikipedia's policy on "living persons". In such instances it is not a Wikipedia requirement that I first make a "request" on the Talk page. WHDT is one of the few remaining television stations which are owned and operated by an "individual person", as opposed to a corporation. There is thus no way to separate an attack on the station from its alter ego, owner and operator, a "living person".

4. You suggest that some threat of legal action against Wikipedia has been made. Where is that statement? I stated that it is the legal obligation of all TV licensees to insure that publicly-disseminated information about their station is correct. I further stated that it is a crime for anyone to engage in activities which directly or indirectly interferes with the public's ability to receive emergency information from a broadcaster (e.g. via deliberate misinformation). For this reason and (3) above, Wikipedia policy must provide for timely corrections of misinformation without penalizing either the station licensee or the "living person".

In your denial for reinstatement of this user, you have not specified any reason for the denial other than to state "editing under multiple names is the least of the problems with this account.". Exactly two user names were used. The original name "WHDT" and my name "Marksteiner".

While reading through the policy documents above, I learned about the 3R rule for the first time. It is unclear to me if it applies when a false statement which is averse to the character of a "living person" is being removed by that person. Some clearer direction on this matter is requested.

I again request that you reconsider the "indefinite" suspension of user WHDT and/or user Marksteiner. 68.209.110.241 (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi
In case you haven't seen it, I've commented at Talk:WHDT. I've also asked the administrator who blocked you to reconsider as I'm not certain that you should have been blocked. I'm in the UK, so have no way of (directly) telling whether the channel is online or not, are you aware of any online sources that you could draw my attention to, that demonstrate WHDT is currently broadcasting? Smartse (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I appreciate your concern that a television station (as well as its FCC licensee and owner) has been blocked from editing its own description. I had to scratch my head a bit to figure out how one goes about proving something by citing an internet reference. Since I am not a "Wikipedian" by any measure (the WHDT page is the only one that I have authored), I'm not even certain if I am responding to your question in the correct place.

A call from a viewer today gave me an idea. He requested the start time for a sports event that WHDT broadcasts. He read about the game in The Palm Beach Post, a newspaper with an online presence. Here is the link: 

I didn't bother to appeal the decision to block users "WHDT" and "Marksteiner", because the process looks tedious and will require a lot of time which I don't have to devote to this.

In case you are interested in seeing some of what WHDT produces, here is a special link used by our promotional department. It's interesting only because it offers a near-HD experience over the internet: 

Feel free to contact me at my email address: "marksteiner@WHDT.net" If you provide me with a list of what you would like "verified" in the WHDT article, I will try to assemble a set of good reference document titles. Not everything from the FCC files is available online. The official system still relies on "physical" documents which are stored in two places. The first is maintained by the Commission in Washington D.C., and the second (a mirror copy) is kept in each TV station's Public File. The Public File for each station is maintained in such a way that it is readily available for public inspection at any time by anyone visiting the station. FCC officials randomly inspect the condition of these files and administer hefty fines for any discrepancy.

I read your homepage, but find that I cannot agree that the principals of certain entities should not edit their own articles, but instead should rely on others to do this. This is especially the case with technical facilities such as nuclear stations, medical and scientific institutions, government-licensed entities such as radio and television stations. These facilities are so complex that only a limited number of professionals are qualified to do this, and have the final work be reliable. Outsiders who merely check their references "on the internet" can only get in over their head and create perhaps well-meaning, but nevertheless terribly inaccurate edits.

Of course I am highly prejudiced on this subject. But still it should be clear that the public relies on what they read in Wikipedia. In the case of full service television stations (such as WHDT), it is these stations which provide critical information during emergencies. They rebroadcast the local and national Emergency Alert System (EAS) alert tones and aural-visual evacuation messages originating from the government. It is critical for the system to work that viewers understand which stations serve their area and how to tune to these stations.

It is up to the station licensee to take all needed steps to educate and to serve the public. This is a critical responsibility that the licensee cannot delegate. Stations are subject to fines and to license forfeiture if they fail to meet certain standards, or if they fail to take corrective steps to correct misinformation. Although the public sees just the entertainment side of TV, this is a serious business. Stations in the U.S. are under constant FCC scrutiny for what the public might see as only the most minor of infractions. Having been a television broadcaster for more than 20 years, I do not want to make this comment any longer than necessary.

Kind regards.Marksteiner (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)