User talk:74.95.135.46

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

August 2008[edit]

Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. J.delanoygabsadds 23:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Political joke from a Democrat. Sorry. Won't happen again. --74.95.135.46 (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI[edit]

Since you work for and your IP is registered to Magic Broadcasting, it is a conflict of interest for you to edit an article that is associated with the company you work for. Also, removing sourced information is considered vandalism and will be, in the future, reverted as such. If you continue, you will be blocked. So, please, stop. - NeutralHomerTalk • 16:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If you "challenge" the information by continuing to remove it, you will be blocked. Further more, I will see to it that your employer knows you are editing Wikipedia not only from a company computer, but on company time. Now, please adhere to our WP:COI rules and play nice. - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
What don't you save us all some trouble and come up with an acutal source for your information. An actual, online, reliable source that says the stations calls were just chosen and that they didn't mean anything. - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
You call the sourced website a "reliable source?" That website is by no means official in any way, shape, or form. What makes it the word of law in this regard?--74.95.135.46 (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
It has been used on numerous pages, is constantly updated with new information and can be linked to and verified by anyone. Where as your "it was just chosen" information can not. - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
So now you're threatening me? Gee, that's funny, doesn't Wikipedia have a policy against that, namely BITE or HARASS? I am maintaining the encyclopedic integrity of the article. There is nothing wrong with that. Also, for the record, the computer being used is not a company computer. It is a personal laptop.--74.95.135.46 (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Please review Other Stuff Exists to explain why your reasoning for allowing that "source" to remain is in error.--74.95.135.46 (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Personal laptop hooked up to the company connection. You are still vandalizing Wikipedia on company time. I bet your boss will be interested to know that while you are supposed to be doing your job on the air, you are playing on the internet. Not cool, dude. But regardless, I can verify my information and you still haven't. Either do or don't, it doesn't matter. I will, though, have a call on Monday to your GM about this. - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
If it matters, I am monitoring the simulcast feed of one of our radio stations before leaving for the day... hardly anything that I can't be on Wikipedia while sitting in the studio and listening. I am on my own time, as a salaried employee, costing the company nothing. I have not vandalized Wikipedia (note that I have yet to violate 3RR, which is one of the boundaries that I would have to cross for this to be vandalism). I am protecting information about something that I spend over 65 hours each week attending to. If you were in a similiar situation, you would feel the same way. The information that you seem so hell-bent on including is wrong. All it would take for me to prove it is one phone call to the original owner of the radio station, who lives in this area to this day. --74.95.135.46 (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) You could call him and tell him the same thing I am telling you....it ain't verifible. This is what we call orginial research. I can say the call sigh for WDVE radio is really a reference to Dove Soap and I can call the company and verify that....but without it linked somewhere online, it is original research and isn't going to be put on Wikipedia. The WDVE calls stand for "Dove" the bird, that is verified and linked. You need to do that. Otherwise you are just a "board op" or the night jock (whichever, I don't care really) not doing his job and vandalizing Wikipedia by removing sourced information. - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, using your same argument, how can we be assured - again, maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia - that the source that is being listed did not publish their website using their own "original research." We can assume, yes, but can we be 100% beyond a reasonable doubt sure? No, we really can't.
At this point, I say that we agree to disagree. The information is wrong. I know that and I am going to do what I can to find a source to prove it. You believe the information is correct. Under Wikipedia policy, I can not make another edit to the article for at least 24 hours under 3RR to begin with, the COI aside. In regard to that question, I would like to refer you to IGNORE. I may be mistaken, but I would interpret that commonly-quoted essay to apply here in the sense that I - as someone very close to the situation - know the information being listed is inaccurate, but can not prove it with an online source at this time. In the big picture, I do not believe that I am being a vandal or that I am doing anything wrong, but rather that I am attempting to act - albeit in a confrontational way - in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I won't edit the article, unless it is to remove something blatantly false or falling under the category of obvious vandalism. In return, you admit that you might actually be wrong here and make an attempt to find another source that is readily accessible by means other than a Google cache search that shows that statement as being factual. I do not believe that you will find such a source, but if you do and I can not find a reliable online source to the contrary, I will let it remain in the infobox.
At the end of the day, we're both trying to do what is right for the Wikipedia project. We are just at odds as to what that "right" happens to be :)
Oh, and by the way, you're talking to someone a bit higher up on the foodchain than just a board op or the night jock, but that's not really relevant, I suppose. --74.95.135.46 (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Find the information and I will admit I was wrong, but at this point, I'm not and I won't. - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Assume good faith, my friend. Have a good night and a great weekend. I'm off for a beverage or two. --74.95.135.46 (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to WKMX, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NeutralHomerTalk • 02:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC) 02:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

August 2009[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to WSPK, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. NeutralHomerTalk • 23:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC) 23:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

WSPK[edit]

A current schedule is in violation of WP:NOT#DIR, a list of former DJs does not fall under that rule. - NeutralHomerTalk • 23:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This coming from someone editing under a clear violation of WP:COI. Do I need to have a conversation with your general manager? I let it go last time, but I won't hesitate to call him this time. - NeutralHomerTalk • 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not editing under COI. The article involved is not of my own station, any of my sister stations, nor does Pamal Broadcasting own in my market. You're making vast assumptions that I would bet administrators would not find agreeable to AGF. --74.95.135.46 (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
One, you have edited stations owned by the company you work for, clear COI. Two, I explained the difference above in my first post. Please read WP:NOT#DIR. - NeutralHomerTalk • 00:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.95.135.46
en.wikipedia.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-51
51506
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:XVTW2PHWFTB7GXWYBEFIPPRJFTV2RFXQ
<urn:uuid:e8ed9a6e-1ca9-44f7-b937-dddaacc25e91>
2017-12-16T18:56:46Z
208.80.154.224
text/html
sha1:AZGGLA7JUPWEVORGQ4GPZ6XIDETTCSYB
<urn:uuid:42129315-8498-4380-90c5-fac7fd52e7e6>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.95.135.46
length
response
<urn:uuid:e2de37a5-3b48-4ce9-9822-039f05cc983f>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-101-239-49.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-51
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for December 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf