User talk:Frank810z
I don't really have the time to go back to collage just so's I can post the correct history data on the wiki....your the ones that reported the incorrect data to begin with....not me...
I should NOT have to fix someone elses mess up.
I tried your process it stinks. and is way too complicated to get any REAL work done.
so you can leave the wiki incomplete, and out of date.. if you want. for all I care.
I wont let my kids use it, because I now know the wiki is not true and correct factual data .
Ill buy them a REAL encyclopedia instead.
thx for nothing...all you chat room kids can do is refer someone to MORE crap info at wiki... you should be HELPING people get the stuff correct instead of chatting...
this is WHY a LOT of people are nowdays using alternatives to the wiki.... the wiki is for KIDS. not for REAL research etc.
I really dont care if you report history incorrectly, or leave half of it OUT of your subject pages etc...... it aint my wiki... I think wiki stinks.
but, if you put the other guy back in, the guy from 2005, (the incorrect data etc) I will dispute that.....so just leave the history OUT alltogether, like you are doing NOW...grin
thats a good idea... and a child's way to solve the problem.
do whatever you gotta do. your info is incomplete, and useless, until you get the facts of Internet TV history correct.... and entered into the "HISTORY" section of that page........... you HAVE the correct data...but choose NOT to use it.......good encyclopedia....................NOT....grin KIDDIE HISTORY BOOK.
chat room kids trying to keep everything level.....grin wow.
no wonder people bag on wiki.... it stinks.
signed TheRaven
the guy that DID really start the Internet's first Internet TV station.
tildys to sign out.....hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha
sounds like YAHOO chat to me...grin
107.5.63.17 (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
.
.
Welcome
[edit]
|
May 2012
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Internet television shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Internet television. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 18:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit] 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 could also click on the signature button 
or 
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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Frank810z. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Internet television, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 20:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Re: Internet television
[edit]The "History" section of the article is no longer there, as it was deleted entirely by another user. You can view the old versions of any article, as well as do comparisons between different versions, by clicking on the "View history" tab on the articles. For example, this is as the article appeared after your last edit. If you use this function to access any old version, and then click on "Edit", you can also get the source code for that version, if you want to work on it further.
As for why the user deleted the article, it seems they're questioning the sources of the claims; claims in the articles should be verifiable. You might want to look for reliable, third-party material on the subject (newspapers, books, scientific literature, etc) that support the claims you're making. You may want to refer to Citing sources on how to properly add such sources.
This is unfortunately a very complicated issue, so allow me to illustrate it easily. For example, if the article previously claimed that first Internet TV station was created in 2005, and then you come along and said an earlier station was created in 2000, another reader might start asking "wait a moment, is there any end to this? Will someone else come along and say someone at CERN ran an 'Internet TV station' in 1996 using CU-SeeMe in its 5-frames-per-minute glory, or something? Wouldn't this kind of momentuous things be mentioned in some book, or maybe a science/technology monthly, or something? I'm sure someone has taken a stab at looking at the history of Internet TV."
Anyway, our editing interface is somewhat confusing, and our policies even more so, but please keep exploring them! They'll (usually) make sense later. Have fun! =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Further discussion on the same...
[edit]I'm terribly sorry I can't read the entirety of the discussions today, so I'll just give some further general advice.
I think it's incredibly unfortunate that these days, Wikipedia community seems to have rather low tolerance for new material that's inadequately sourced and especially if it's inadequately formatted or somehow out-of-place in the articles. This can unfortunately be even worse if you have any personal involvement in the matter - someone may think you're advancing your own goals. (Personally, I don't mind, as long as people stick to the facts that are mentioned in third-party sources. You just need to be very careful about what you write.)
As I said, I haven't read the discussions, but I just sort of assume something like that happened to you. It's possible your attempts to improve the article got shot down because they didn't meet the quality standards, and no one stopped by to give you a hand. I'm a little bit cynical about this. I'd like to believe Wikipedia was as newbie-friendly place as it was years ago, but reality doesn't always agree with me. I agree quality standards are a good thing, but the cost may be too high.
So I'll just state this: investing time and effort in learning how to work on articles properly is very important for Wikipedia newcomers. You will need to be able to impress people, and you do that by making articles and additions to the articles that people don't want to say bad things about.
I'd suggest you start from a little bit less ambitious goals first. Go to the tutorial, learn how to work on the mediawiki markup language. Do some work on some other articles. Find a [citation needed] bit in some article, find a source for that claim, and add it (as explained in guide).
Also, you probably want to make a good impression on communications too - unfortunately, this is yet another stumbling block of our software, it's really arcane for newbies. Log in when you make comments, and sign the comments you leave (use the signature button in toolbar). Use the preview button to make sure your additions look right. You may want to read the talk page guide.
As for the article itself, it'd be a good thing to recognise one thing: The fact that you have third-party sources for your material is a very good thing. That is exactly what people need to build quality articles. So if you make claims that are based on the web articles or books, you may want to take a look at how to format those references properly - see {{cite web}} and {{cite book}}, and the citation guide above.
You may also want to be careful about what you actually say based on the sources. Like I hinted above, people expect you to be very careful when dealing with subjects you have a potential conflict of interest in. Our neutral point of view/no original research policy is really, really baffling for newbies, but in summary, it states that facts should stand on their own - if something is, for example, stated in a book, then that single fact is stated in a book; it is not appropriate to say this is a proof of something else entirely, unless that conclusion is also stated in another third party source. This is one of the big philosophical sticking points of Wikipedia that is really complicated for a lot of newbies - definitely warrants a look and quite a bit of thought!
If you have any specific questions, please ask me - or you may find more comprehensive help at the helpdesk, as I think I'm not very good at explaining stuff in a simple manner. Once again, have fun and don't get too easily disappointed! And don't be disappointed if stuff you want to add doesn't get through immediately - like you said, this is a complicated site. Everyone needs some time to learn. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Come to the Teahouse
[edit]Hi there
I see that you have been having a few problems figuring out how Wikipedia works. That is nothing new! Here's an invitation to the Teahouse - a place in Wikipedia for new editors to talk, get support and learn the ropes.
Cheers!
|
Hello! Frank810z,
you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
|
Talk:Internet television
[edit]Do not rewrite posts to which replies have already been given - that is disruptive. If you have new comments or clarifications, add them below existing comments - either within the existing section, or by starting a new section on the talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)