User talk:MusicTex

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas R. Vozzella has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Laurent (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Thomas R. Vozzella. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you.  Until It Sleeps PublicPC    13:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thomas R. Vozzella
Dude, blanking pages is not cool. --Aepoutre (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am done with this. I am gone.  Give it a rest.  Dr. Vozzella has told me he doesn't want the negative publicity being on Wikipedia has brought him.  It isn't worth my time.  Wikipedia isn't cool, it's vicious. MusicTex (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the best policies wikipedia has going for it is WP:OWN. Essentially, what you write doesn't belong to you; sorry! I wouldn't say that Wikipedia has given Vozzella negative publicity for two reasons: 1) Wikipedia isn't very reliable publicity anyway and 2) I really doubt many people even read this article. And Wikipedia isn't vicious; it just isn't nice about everything and not everyone gets his or her way on Wikipedia. Justice isn't nice either, but people cry for it all the time. But that's a topic for another time. If Dr. Vozzella thinks Wikipedia will bring him any publicity, then he doesn't understand its nature. That said, if a Wikipedia article should ever be written about him, then it probably will be written about him. Part of the problem here is that you just weren't familiar enough with the mechanics of the encyclopedia. It isn't about what you know any more than any other encyclopedia; it's about research based on reliable sources. Next time you want to create an article, read the guidelines first and follow those instead of the whims of every other editor. Cheers! --Aepoutre (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, another good one to check out is WP:VERIFY. I just left a message at Talk:Thomas R. Vozzella‎ after doing what little cleanup I could (that is, without re-researching the entire article myself). You really just need to either start referencing books and articles or Google search like crazy and start citing reliable sources. I added a Template:Cite news for the one newspaper article there. What concerns me most is that some of the references you added don't support the article information, and that not only doesn't improve Wikipedia but it also looks really bad. --Aepoutre (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

New Messages
You have new Messages on my talk page User_Talk:Frankie0607

Re: Thomas R. Vozzella
Sorry, but you'll have to let the Articles for Deletion discussion run its course. Regards, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It was, then you added it to go again. Just speedily delete. MusicTex (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See our speedy deletion policy for what can be speedy deleted. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I really would like to keep it if at all possible. On the discussion page it seems as there are some groups who have validated the article for reasons other than music. This is just such a hurtful process. MusicTex (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Depending on how you look at it, it can be very much a growing process, as well. Hang in there, MusicTex. --Aepoutre (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)