User talk:StationNT5Bmedia/archive 1

Notability of R. Weldon Smith
A "" template has been added to the article R. Weldon Smith, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. EarthPerson 14:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What was the purpose of this edit? You put in "wp:block" which, when I checked goes to the Wikipedia:Blocking policy page.  Please read over Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.  Individual editors don't own articles.  Contributions belong to the project as a community.  Would you at least be courteous enough to reply to my messages here?  Thanks.  --EarthPerson 14:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of your talk page
I've removed the redirect you had on your talk page. Talk pages exist to allow other editors to communicate with each other. Please use it as such. Please talk a look at Introduction to learn more about Wikipedia and at Conflict of interest since I think you are creating articles about yourself. Thanks and happy editing. --EarthPerson 14:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit comments I or anyone else make. It is not proper do so.  You can learn more at Talk_page_guidelines.  --EarthPerson 14:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Second deletion of R. Weldon Smith
A tag has been placed on R. Weldon Smith, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

My addition to the canned message: Looking back, I see I did this was already deleted back on 19 June. I had tagged it then and kept it in my watch list which is why I saw it after being recreated. Please don't keep recreating deleted articles.

You may also want to look at User page regarding what User pages are used for. Looking over the history of yours, someone else already objected to it here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a means of self-promotion or a personal website.

You're welcome to stay, but you need to contribute about more than just R. Weldon Smith. If you want to message me, please do so here or on my own talk page. --EarthPerson 15:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No Fair
Point & click technology allows familiarized browsers to slam, cram & over-ride internet posting. This is unbecoming to the www information forum. As a non-profit organization, Wikipedia thrives on the publication of new information. Source journalism in this community based on trust can not be mentored by the deletion of pertinent articles, such as the creation of User:StationNT5Bmedia, and subsequent articles being created that have literary value, not only in the scientific community, but also in the fields other valuable topics that could be provided. It is unbecoming of an encyclopedia's contributing editor to delete other editor's work when suspect work is considered outside the single-minded purpose, a very narrow vision of your world.

This is an extreme learning curve for any editor. Slicing film reels, cropping photos, and text edits could be said "were so yesterday". But, the fact is that all media, including our partnered stations ABC13, MyFoxHouston, and the Houston Community Newspapers still have to do it. There are many IP addresses to this network of editors, so singling out one will only cause a change in the dynamic IP addresses. The username (StationNT5Bmedia) could be equal to any other contributor some day, given the opportunity to develope formats. Quickly deleting articles that took weeks to prepare with the push of a toggle could be considered as an unreignable power. Perhaps this bulletin board could be useful if an explanation could arrive on how to undash edits? Why are some fields dashed around the perimeter of the section, and others nicely quoted, without the border? StationNT5Bmedia

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EarthPerson"

Thank you for the timely reply. Your focus to the quality & formats of fellow Wikipedians in duly noted. The language still requires a mastery of publishing, and is learned, not natural. The sandbox is designed for mute results. Edits there do not go "live". It is a common practice in web edits not to "re-invent" the wheel. Templates useful in the general sense can be "tweeked" by those experienced in publishing that format. Wikipedians also learn to "speak" the language. Please continue at your convenience. The language may have some fluidity. StationNT5Bmedia

Example of dashed perimeter here

This was added 24 June, 2007 19:55 UTC as an example of a dashed border: results from indentation. To avoid a dashed border, left justify beginning remarks.

Image copyright problem with Image:HouseCarPiano.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:HouseCarPiano.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. -- moe.RON  Let's talk  21:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read this and understand it
StationNT5Bmedia, I have restored your talk page to a previous version to show my comments as I wrote them, without your changes to them.

Do not change my comments again as you did here. Calling it "Clean up" in the edit summary is hardly correct. This is the second time (technically third time) you have done this. The previous time was in two edits here @ 14:44, 24 June 2007 and again here @ 14:50, 24 June 2007

It is wrong to change what someone has said on a talk page. You are putting words into my mouth that I did not say. If you want to remove things, you can, but don't change other editors comments. Editors are encouraged to archive their talk pages. Please see Help:Archiving a talk page.

But before you worry about archiving your talk page, I strongly suggest (again) that you go read the talk page guidelines and read it over more closely this time. If you change my, or any other editors comments again, I will take this to the Administrator's Notice Board, as this is not proper behavior. Please do not take this as a threat, as it is not. I would do the same to any other editor who was changing my or other editor's comments.

What you wrote and attributed to me in your clean up was false and makes me look like an arrogant idiot. Here are the statements you made and my rebuttals (in italics):
 * 1) "After a while, if you learn the Wikipedians language, you will be offered to join the community..." — No one is offered to join, the community is open.  You have joined the community yourself.  Becoming an admin is through community consensus.
 * 2) "...of administrators (professional web publishers that speak the language of the internet protocol), using tools, such as the tag . . .""." — Admins are not necessarily profession web publishers. This is not the proper use of the term internet protocol and anyonce can use the prod template.
 * 3) "The community requires ID:" — No, it does not. Getting an ID is encouraged but editors are able to edit without signing in.
 * 4) "If you want to message me, please do so here or on my own talk page. --EarthPerson 15:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)" — While I agree with this, I did not write it — at least not in the same way.

Do not change my comments again.

I also suggest that you only edit through your StationNT5Bmedia ID and not through various IP addresses. Just remember to login before any editing. Thank you. --EarthPerson 14:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Playing the Role
Identifying user authentication in a world wide community can be challenging. Philanthropist (those who have a love for others) are patient with these subjects, and others are not. Likewise, I find the community of Wikipedians to be both in kind. I appreciate mostly the assistance locating needed understanding of the knowledge pool, and unlike some other talk pages I've seen, would prefer straight talk. As this continues, a clear focus may develope through the channel of the Wikipedia. Thanks again, StationNT5Bmedia 16:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your essay in Immigration reform
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please always observe our core policies. --EarthPerson 04:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --EarthPerson 04:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

various
A few points on your recent edits: -- RHaworth 19:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * we do not sign articles. Only talk page entries are signed.
 * Template:/lensometer was a mistake, I have deleted it
 * The inclusion of a large amount of text in Image:VidorLensClock(1).jpg is counter to Wikipedia's collaborative policy. Please reduce the image to diagram only plus labels and upload it to The Commons (so other language wikis can use it). Then incorporate the text as text in the relevant article.

Notability of Image:RafaelOnauciaSF.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:RafaelOnauciaSF.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:RafaelOnauciaSF.jpg seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:RafaelOnauciaSF.jpg, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Image:RafaelOnauciaSF.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-synchronous transmissions
Hi, do you have sources for the info you have been adding to this article? Kevin 07:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that the wikify tag is now gone, although the article does not have a lead paragraph that directly states what the subject is. Could you tell me why you don't think the info in this article could be merged with manual transmission? As it is now, the article is a real mess, and in parts reads more like a how to guide than an encyclopedia article. You're lack of communication on this is a little frustrating also. Do you think we could have a discussion about where the article is heading? Kevin 07:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions. This is a simple mistake to make and by now should have been corrected. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talkpages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Thank you. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 10:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is intentionally created as a blank page for future use. Current discussion of User_talk:StationNT5B is ongoing & preferences not to disrupt channels of open administration will be honored.StationNT5Bmedia 20:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)