User talk:Wikiposter1

I do not understand how this Talk page method works. Communicate with me by email. A forum style Talk page sure would be better. Wikiposter1

I have put a HUGE amount of time into making articles. I got asked into helping make one, and then I found myself getting involved in more articles. Kind of scary actually how you get sucked into it. I never intended to put so much time into it; at least not in such a short period of time. That does not seem to be appreciated on WP by some. It is hard enough to invest time into contributing, and I do not have time for this kind of argumentative behavior. Sometimes there does not seem to be any positive attitude or support by improving my articles, and instead a full attack and deletion attempt. By some, there seems to be a very cynical and negative approach to articles that are put on WP. I have been reviewing other peoples articles that have been negatively impacted. I don't know who the people are taking these negative actions, but you seem to think everyone should be fluent in Wikipedia method and ways and requirements. We are not being paid, and we are volunteering. I think the few recent guys taking actions are doing this too much day in and day out, and you have become, unfortunately, unpleasant. From what I have seen, some of you seem to be full time employees with the amount of time being input to Wikipedia activity, or totally retired with nothing else to do.

If your intention is to completely turn me off from contributing to Wikipedia, you can easily succeed at it. I assure you the damage will be greater than me just not contributing. Read my User page. I think I did a good job. Sure I made mistakes, but that should not be surprising, and those can be fixed and help fixing them is more of value. I disagree with the viewpoints on the articles that caused a complete rejection(deletion). Since I have put so much work into them already, I will do improvements on those that I got some kind of feedback on, like ICG Communications. You need to appreciate people's free efforts. I prefer if edits to articles were done in an objective manner or help provided objectively, or at least rash actions not taken with help included.

The way article reviews are currently being handled on Wikipedia concerns me. It concerns me a lot. I keep thinking how many others these few must have offended or forced away from contributing. By being so hard on these contributors, taking unfair actions, and possibly being uncooperative, a large underlying harm can occur to Wikipedia in the way of diminishing support for WP. I agree that articles should be done according to some kind of WP guideline, but interaction with contributors should not be done in such a harsh manner to discourage them from contributing or being involved with WP. I had contributed small amounts to WP a long long time ago with others, and I don't even recall the topics I contributed on, but I do remember I never heard of any problems in the past. No harmful treatment existed before. It was a pleasant gratifying feeling that existed. Wikiposter1

Welcome!

Hello, Wikiposter1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for helping us build a great free encyclopedia. We have five basic principles, but other than that, we advise that you be bold and edit. If you ever have any questions or need help, feel free to leave a message at the help desk, and other Wikipedia editors will be happy to assist you.

Thanks again and congratulations on becoming a Wikipedian!

P.S. New discussion threads for you will appear at the bottom of this page.

Your edits

It is hard to escape the conclusion that you are here only to promote an internet provider. In addition, one wonders what the relation is between you and Srvsa1. Your future edits, and your explanation of the relationship between you and that user, can possibly decide whether your account will be blocked. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not meant as an insult, but your lack of understanding in the subject matter is immediately displayed with your first statement, and the association you have obviously made with an unrelated collaborated article, and I suspect this is because you are trying to make a false connection between two unrelated companies with similar names. Before I saw the mention of the other user, I first thought your comment was based on the AG deleted article, which I am sure is really the basis of your comments. If based on that, then I guess it all depends on how you are viewing the article. I am able to see it from that incorrect viewpoint too, but I sincerely tell you that any such conclusion about me attempting to promote anything would be wrong. I like articles that list things about companies. I did not seeing anything wrong with it, and I still do not. Later, when time allows, I will just make it easy on myself and truncate it to become like other company articles on WP. Sad, but fine, whatever. Now I understand why other company articles are so badly lacking information.

It is also sad if you got that kind of power on Wikipedia. It is hard to escape the conclusion that you personally have the power to block accounts based on a whim and bad logic. Do you have the individual power to block an account? Please let me know if this is true. I would really like to know if this is the case. Personally attacking a user sure does not help the community of WP.

You say, "your future edits". Seriously, how much future edits do you expect from someone when you slap that person on the face and give unfair treatment, and then threaten that person. You have already discouraged me from contributing more. Job well done. I don't remember all the past contributions, but I think I have contributed to topics of Intel, Cisco, IBM, and various security companies, and Internet and tech companies. Ya, it does not show under this account, but I have. Wikiposter1

I'm not aware that I attacked you, but I wish you had just answered the question about how you found out about that other user, whose contributions are to a not easily visible sandbox. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are aware now. You threatened me with the statement of "your account will be blocked". Absolutely uncalled for. That is a personal threat.

You never asked a question. Go back and check and you will see. You made statements with support-less and badly done implications in an effort to publicly defame me. It does not matter if it was or was not intentional.

In addition, you do not have the right to pry in the private relations of other people or private matters of others. This is not to be considered as legal advice, but I am sure if you research it you will find that prying in the manner you are trying is in fact grounds for a lawsuit. Just FYI to save you from possible legal pain. In addition, I found what you attempted as distasteful and rude. Plus, how we communicated the information is not relevant, and truly none of your business. I am sure you have enough imagination to think of all the different possible ways information can be communicated (IM, email, phone, SMS/MMS, chat, snail mail, forums/BB/online discussion sites/social network sites, and of course face to face, etc.)

I did notice that you never answered my question, "do you have the individual power to block an account"?

IMO, Drmies, you need to give people more benefit of doubt, and tone down the cynicism. Reviewing a lot of what you have done in the last few days on other's posts, and the quantity involved, I now kind of understand why, but not acceptable; at least not to me.
Wikiposter1

Speedy deletion nomination of File:AstraGate Logo with black background and stars.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:AstraGate Logo with black background and stars.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC) I don't really care. Obviously it is a valid image, and the original reason it was upload was valid, which was to display the current company logo. Wikiposter1[reply]

ICG Communications

Not SECOND source--SECONDARY sources. See WP:SECONDARY. And please don't email but use on-wiki communication; FreeRangeFrog ‎told you the same thing, I believe. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE stop emailing me. Last time. Also, you said "why you think more than one referenced source is needed?" Again, I never said that: please read more carefully, and have a look at WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source (not, "referenced source"). Hint: documents produced by the company itself are not generally deemed reliable. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No FreeRangeFrog indicated no such thing. As you have done with other things, you have made wrong assumptions about this too. The above reply was appreciated and was actually useful. Wikiposter1

In addition, I can tell you I hated this wiki communications thing you guys got before having to figure out how to post like this. Really dislike it. It is not quick and easy, and IMO it does not provide for easy direct communication or reply. Like I said, I think a forum implementation would be better.Wikiposter1

FreeRangeFrog was quite clear in their edit summary. I have no intention of emailing with you since I have no desire to break whatever wiki privacy I still have. Posting on a talk page is no more difficult than writing in article space; if you can do the one you can do the other. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One would think you figured out that I never saw such a message, and I still do not see it. As far as the rest of your comments go, wrong, and wrong! Drmies, I just do not have time to waste gabbing with you about this stuff, and to make you understand. Your logic and assumptions are so incorrect, and accusations so wrong they may be libel. I rather just steer away from such activity.
Wikiposter1

I am just glad that I was saved from putting efforts into other company articles about such companies as Level 3 Communications, Above.net, Northpoint, netcomm, EIG, Lightwave, Lucent, various companies named ICG (none related), and a few others. The first thing I would have done was to list all the services and products those companies were and/or are involved with, which obviously is not liked here at WP or grossly misunderstood. If I see an article on a country, I want to see a list of the what that country produces, what they import, what they export, what public services are provided, what their country model is, and any kind of list that reflects how they threat, motivate, handle the people of the country. Those supposed facts (reliable or not) are directly gotten from the country's own disclosed data (unless it is an independent research, which is unlikely), and then published by everyone else and conclusions derived from. One point being that some information should come directly from the country or company the article is about, and often they are the best source for that information, if not the only true and originating source.
Wikiposter1

Copyright practices and more

Hello. Per your note at my talk page, I assume that you inadvertently removed this, so I'm restoring it to make it easier for you to read. You also have the ability to access anything that was ever on your talk page by clicking the "history" tab, which shows a date by date record of previous versions. See Help:History. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the change you made to Wikipedia:Copy-paste (I have reverted it for reasons explained in edit summary), I took a look at your contributions to ICG Communications; they seem to copy content verbatim from at least [1]. I'm afraid that we cannot incorporate such content unless we are able to verify that it is compatibly licensed or public domain. I cannot find any indication in the archive that it is, but unfortunately much of the formatting has been lost. If you are able to find a clear licensing statement in the license to verify that the material is compatibly licensed or public domain, please let me know. I'll be happy to restore the content in the history of the article. If there's not already a release but you are authorized to grant one, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the processes. If you have any questions about them, you're very welcome to come by my talk page. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A few tips for using talk pages - to sign your posts, type four tildes (~~~~) which will put your username and a timestamp, both of which are helpful in understanding the progression of a conversation. When responding to somebody, it is also helpful to indent by using a colon in front of each paragraph of your reply. First response gets one colon; second response gets two; so on. Help:Talk has some more information about this practice and other talk page information that may be helpful to you.

I see also from your notes above that you are feeling unhappy about your initial experiences on Wikipedia. I'm sorry to read that; it can be difficult to acclimate to any new culture at first. If you would like a friendly place to ask general questions and receive guidance, you might want to visit the Wikipedia:Teahouse. This was designed in part to ensure that newcomers have a comfortable place for assistance when they are feeling overwhelmed.

User:Drmies is an administrator (see Wikipedia:Administrator). That means he went through a community analysis and election process in which other volunteers assessed his experience to determine if he would reasonably apply such policies as Wikipedia:Blocking and Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Page protection. So, in answer to your question to him above, yes, he personally has the power to block accounts; however, his doing so is guided by well established policies, and I'm sure he would not deviate from those.

In terms of your interactions with Drmies with the article ICG Communications, you are interacting with him there in an editorial capacity. Administrators are still permitted to act as editors, too. When you and another editor disagree about how content should be handled, there are a number of practices that you can follow to help reach the best resolution. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In this case, copyright concerns will trump, however. There are some policies that we must follow. WP:C, which requires that we do not import content without being able to verify that it is free for us to do so, is one of them, as is our policy regarding what content may be written about living people. Beyond those, our core content policies are verifiability, neutrality and the prohibition against original research. In a nutshell, articles on Wikipedia are supposed to succinctly and neutrally summarize what reliable sources have said about notable entities. What organizations have said about themselves may be supplementary, but if we do not have sufficient sources that are not related to the organization, we generally should not have an article on that organization. The guideline on identifying reliable sources and the notability guideline on organizations may have more information.

I hope that some of these links are helpful, and I hope that your future contributions are more enjoyable to you! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Cuneiform script. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was no personal attack. Calling someone ignorant is not an insult. It just means he/she lacks knowledge on some topic. Obviously decisions were made based on title of a book and ignorance of the content of the book and ignorance of important tablet writings. So, saying ignorant is completely valid, and not an insult. User:Wikiposter1 (talk)

And your insistence that a fringe book is a reliable source is at WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 08:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikiposter1 (talk)

And your insistence that it is a "fringe" book, when it is not, and it is in fact a very reliable source. The author is an educated scholar, researcher, and a scientist with a book that has been bought by the masses. Sorry, but I reject your accusation, and do not see any validity for reversal, as the modification is valid and the quotation correct, and the format correct, and the supporting reference is according WP:RSN.

In addition, the prior statement used (before my edits) on the cuneiform Wikipedia page was incorrect. The statement had the wrong spelling of the person. The city of the discovery was wrong. It used the derogatory slang phrase of "Middle East", which is typically used by bigots and mass media for manipulation, and willingly or unwilling adopted by those that are ignorant of this. There is no such place as "Middle East" on a map, and it is Asia, and more accurately western/west Asia. Yes, I know within recent decade that unfortunate phrase has now included a north African country as well by some, but for the most part and typically it referenced West Asia. I think this article helps explain it well: http://technotes.whw1.com/geography/93-where-is-middle-east-who-or-what-is-part-of-middle-east. Even on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs it is indicated as a slur. Sadly, I now found that Wikipedia is propagating this slang phrase with a whole section on "Middle East" as if it is a legitimate term and an official geographical location, which it is NOT. I also see that a poor choice has been made to use that phrase on the Archaeology section on Wikipedia. Doug, you are authoritative there, and so please have "Middle East" removed from that section of Wikipedia and replace with an appropriate term on West Asia, like the other columns.

Nobody has the right or is justified in calling that author's book fringe, nor dismissing the book or it's content as not worthy because you FEEL it is "fringe". FYI, cuneiform was once considered "fringe" and all of cuneiform writing were ignored and dismissed. Well, look at you all now. It is a valid and researched book. It is as scientific as any other book referenced throughout Wikipedia, and actually more scientific and even more factual and much higher percentage of facts than most books referenced on Wikipedia. In fact, I am seeing many of the things referenced by the people involved on this discussion as what one may call "fringe" or not a valid source.

You may not be aware, but it has been proven as fact that such author's statements (including book titles) have factual bases, as we have now translated and uncovered or rediscovered our own human history through many cuneiform tablets. These are valid proven tablets that nobody is able to dispute. Multiple tablets from different places collaborating the same conclusions.

If you have not actually read MAJOR cuneiform tablets or their translation, then you are not in a place to judge such a book or such an author. I have read, and currently am reading some of the most important found tablets. It is an extremely time consuming thing, and I understand why the knowledge would be lacking. Based on the factual stories, recordings, and the clear advanced ancient science knowledge demonstrated by these tablets and the words of the past rulers and scribes, it has become obvious and proven to masses that it is clearly not "fringe" for a book to have such a title or make such statements. In fact, it has now been proven as true, but I understand it takes time for that knowledge to get dispensed. Until that knowledge is gained by the greater portion of the population, such invalid attacks on such books occur and with wrongful accusation like calling it "fringe". Just because you are not aware of it YET, or not studied it YET, does not mean you or others should be dismissing the book or it's material for personal lack of awareness in that specific area of research within the scientific community. Oh, just so you know, in non-fiction tablets made by top scribes and/or known ancient historical leaders, it factually states in tablets that an astronaut (obviously not that specific word) came to Earth and others followed, and so obviously this referenced book's title has extremely strong support and validity by cuneiform writings. Those tablets say a lot more obviously, but I wanted to point out the accepted known discoveries that support his title, and why he may have chosen that title.

In time, this book reference will not seem unusual at all. It only seems this way to those who are not versed on the latest discoveries, and proofs. This whole argument will be seen as ridiculous in time.

User:Wikiposter1 (talk)

Your recent editing history at Cuneiform script shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]