User talk:Pienza89

E! Entertainment Television Movietime original files and docs support that Larry Namer, Brian Owens, Rick Portin, Mike Sobel, Bill Zaccheo, Mark Hale, and others launched the network. If you research Alan Mruvka you will discover that his own info, which he wrote on his bio, is ridiculous and exaggerated--how could he produce 20,000 hours of programming (much less one, he had nothing to do with production at Movietime) when the network was only on the air (24 hours a day) 13,000 hours before he was removed from Movietime!! And if born in 1967, did he really go to college and have a background, and then come up with a network idea when he was 16 years old in 1984? Any sourced materials that support the above claims have been manipulated---- Pienza89 (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is what is listed on Wikipedia, not on other non-Wikipedia sources. I do not believe that any of the numbers you list are on any Wikipedia article. If they are, please discuss the issue on the appropriate article talk page. If you continue to revert your changes without providing a source, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Do not email any documents because I don't want them. You may restore your edit if you can provide citations from reliable sources. Include such sources in the article edits. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: The Greenwood quoted reference is very different than the quotation that you provided. I have told you before to please stop removing content and replacing it with an unsourced list. You might be correct about the founder list, but you must provide a citation from a reliable source so that the information can be verified. Your own description does not appear to be a reliable source. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I have told you repeatedly: If you can provide a citation from a reliable source on expanding the list of founders, then you may do so. Speculating on whether the listed source is accurate or not does not work. You may provide a source that counters the listed source, but you believing that it is inaccurate and speculating why is not sufficient. Your uksuperweb source does not appear to be a reliable source. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I have corrected founded and launched sentence. I am glad that you are finally understanding the need for a reliable source for expanding the list of people who founded/launched the network. As for your issues with the Alan Mruvka article, you suggest that you bring up the issues on the article talk page, but your complaint about his birth year has already been addressed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: The ownership of E! by HBO, Warner, and others is already in the article in the second paragraph of the History section. That particular paragraph covers the entire ownership history of the network and it is therefore more appropriate to group the initial ownership there instead of in the first paragraph. Sentences from sources are not copied verbatim in Wikipedia articles except in certain special circumstances as copying verbatim would be a copyright violation. I suggest that if you have other issues with the article that you discuss them on the appropriate article talk page instead of continuing the discussion on my talk page. Discussions held on article talk pages are more likely to attract the attention and involvement of other interested editors than a discussion on an editor's talk page.

On a side note, if you wish to leave me additional messages about the editing guidelines of Wikipedia regarding E! or Alan Mruvka, please edit the existing section on my talk page instead of creating an entirely new section. Grouping related comments together makes it easier to follow conversations. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: It appears to me that the second paragraph evolved (like most content on Wikipedia) from edits by multiple editors, not you as an anonymous IP alone. But really, I'm beginning to tire of this conversation. If you have issues with the article, please bring up the issues on the article talk page and discuss them with other interested editors. I've told you multiple times what you need to do to regarding any disputed facts. I disagree that it necessary to include HBO, et. al. after the launch date as it is unnecessary and repetitive with the second paragraph. But if you feel that it absolutely must be included, I point you again to the article talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping by per a request that I look in, as I was the original author of the related Alan Mruvka page. What I wish to share, is that many times we editors might begin a page about a topic because we "know" something about a topic and feel that we might be able to create a nice encyclopedic entry. But what must be remembered is that what we "know" must always be supported by reliable sources that verify what we "know". As was done to the E! article, if a new fact is included, or an old one changed, the new or changed information must be verifiable in a reliable source, else it will be reverted. No matter what an editor might personally know or not know... we have a responsibility to ensure that whatever information we include be verifiable by others. Yes, I realize that your account has only been around since May 08, 2010,[1] but no... I am not being patronizing. The advice in the above comment is for anyone who might read this page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to E!, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]