Hello, I'm Arctic Kangaroo. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Antique radio, because to me it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks,Arctic Kangaroo 16:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Artic Kangaroo,
I really did not appreciate it, when you removed all my hard research work, that I have contributed to the many Wikipedia sites. I have spent 10 years on researching the materials that I have added. I also did not see anything in the rules, that says you can't link to another source outside of Wikipedia. However, I added back all my materials, but I also have removed all my links, to make you happy.
Finally, if you have any other concerns, please contact me before you go ahead and remove anymore of my materials.
- Ok then, you can feel free to restore them. But, I need you to take note that Wikipedia does not allow the use of blogs as sources, so please don't link any blogs. Also, regarding YouTube, which you have added, is the main reason I considered it spam. Arctic Kangaroo 02:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- "Thanks" Arctic Kangaroo for replying back to me. I understand your concerns, and I will not use any blogs or YouTube links, in any of my research materials that is added to Wikipedia.
- Thanks Historianbuff
Hi Arctic Kangaroo,
I am contacting you, for I am having problems with another person, who keeps on deleting my information, that I have added to one of the Wikipedia (Phonograph) pages. His name is "Foetusized" and he continues to do this. I have replied back and answered his questions, but he insists on doing what he wants. Also, I don't see that he has ever written any information on the Phonograph section before ??
Can you help me ?
Signing your posts on user talk/talk pages
Still not OK
Your cited source seems to copied directly into your wikipedia contributions. This is either a blatant copyright violation of someone else's work, or more likely an awkward attempt to put your own original research into wikipedia. See WP:NOR. Also, linking an ad-laden personal web cite is seldom acceptable in WP, as it looks like self promotion and WP:COI. Further, adding the same material to many articles is seldom appropriate. Work it out on one article, and you'll learn more about how WP works. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I am replying back to you, regarding my work and information that I have added to Wikipedia. The materials is not copyright infringement, for I have done the research and also written the materials. I have also written these materials for other reference sources, including the reference source that I have cited. But, all of my materials is based solely on factual information, which I have gathered and researched for many years. In my reference source, is a lot documented written materials, that came from other engineers and actual newspaper articles of that particular time period. I am not trying to self promote, for I have nothing to sell or recommend. I am only trying to report historic factual information, that has not been ever written about.
- The problem is, what you have just described is what is known here at Wikipedia as original research, and original research is against our policy. Please see Wikipedia:No original research for more information. Thanks -- Foetusized (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Then let me say that thru my research of looking thru historical information and published documents, I was able to write these materials. All of the materials that I have written about is well documented. I do not rewrite history information, I only write about information that I found and report it.
- Perhaps, instead of expecting everyone else on Wikipedia to stop following the standards developed by the community and follow your lead, you should follow the links to the standards that have been supplied to you, and try to follow them. Please read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And yes, i have contributed to the Phonograph article in the past -- Foetusized (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi again Foetusized,
I do follow the rules and happen to disagree with you. The materials that I have written on the Wikipedia sites, are all from existing (not new) reference materials that I have found. These reference materials are from former engineers, advertisements, newspaper articles that were of the same 1955-56 time period. This information is what I have gathered and presented on my reference source as well, which is the Radiomuseum. I also noticed that other people on Wikipedia has also used the Radiomuseum as a reference and creditable source. Please visit it this site and read all the existing documents that I have also put onto this site, and you will see that all my information on Wikipedia is correct. And also thanks for contributing to the Wikipedia Phonograph article as well. Lastly, I am only trying to report historic items and information on the Wikipedia sites, that have not been written about before. All of the information that is reported has been well documented already.
- Again, it would be great to reference the advertisements, news articles and other publications that you've used. I, for one, appreciate knowing about early new applications of transistors. If you had anything that talked about how many were sold, that would be of great value to the article, too- I suspect that at $59.95 in 1956, there were not very many (that would be the purchasing power of, what, about $500 or $600 today?). --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
"Thanks" for your reply and interest in the information that I have added to Wikipedia. I have also added a second reference source, which the Philco Phorum. Ron Rameriz is the person who runs the website and is also a historian, who has written two different books on the Philco history. In my added reference to his site, you will see that Philco had introduced the all-transistor phonograph models TPA-1 and TPA-2 in the summer of 1955, for the 1956 selling season. Also, if you go to my other reference source, Radiomuseum, you will see that I have uploaded many pieces of 1955 Philco documentation and advertisements on 1955-56 Philco all-transistor phonographs.
THANKS FOR YOUR INTEREST
- User-supplied content on web sites is not usually accepted as a Wikipedia reference, which might be the problem here. Books, newspaper and magazine articles are usually more accepted references. There's a Wikpedia page found at the abbreviated reference WP:RS which talks about these problems.
- I'm just looking with Google Books and I think there may be a problem with the Philco/Chrysler claim. What about the 1954 Ford Thunderbird which apparently according to this  had an all-transistor radio which allowed Ford to offer a one-year warranty on the radio? Your thoughts? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I have spent about 10 years in researching and gathering information materials, for the written materials that are also on Wikipedia. And over time, there are a lot of claims, to who was the very first company to develop and produce the very first all-transistor car radio. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of supporting data information to back up their claims. I could assure you that Motorola had never produced an all-transistor car radio in 1954 or 1955. In fact, Motorola had developed its "first" production power transistor-2N176 transistor in 1955, which was used in the audio output section of the car radio. Also, Motorola had been working on using this power 2N176 transistor in the development of Hybrid radios, which contained both transistors and vacuum tubes. And Motorola started to supply both Chrysler and Ford with these Hybrid radios for its 1956 car models. Prior to that, Motorola only produced vacuum tube radios for Chrysler and Ford.
Finally, I have also downloaded (3) of the most creditable and prestigious newspapers, which all state that Chrysler and Philco was the very first company to develop and produce an all-transistor car radio in 1955. This information is in the Wall Street Journal April 28th 1955, New York Times, April 28th 1955 and also The Los Angeles Times May 09, 1955. Also, all three of these newspapers still have an archive section, where you could still research and retrieve any historic information. And if Ford or Motorola had ever produced an all-transistor car radio, then it would of made "Breaking News" at the time and would also had been in one of the major newspapers at the time.
Please go the the Radiomuseum , and you will see all the documents that I had downloaded and are talking about. Just to let you know, that the site layout is a little difficult to navigate. But on the main page is a little red bar that is on the right side of the pictures shown. You need to left click and hold down the mouse key over the lower red bar and slowly move the red bar down to see all the documents.
Please read and enjoy all the supporting documents and data information on the Radiomuseum site.
I am sorry, but I forgot to link the page ....
I also forgot to add this reference link, which is the Chrysler museum historic information website. The museum is now closed, but its website information is still available. And on the page under 1955, it shows Chrysler with an "Engineering First", for an all-transistor car radio. And under the 1956 section, it shows Chrysler using this all-transistor car radio, in its 1956 model cars.
Just to let you know, that author of your reference 2013 book had made a mistake. There was not a 1954 Ford Thunderbird car. The first year was 1955, according to Wikipedia Ford Thunderbird and is link is : Ford_Thunderbird.
I also found a website that has old car brochures, which I found a 1955 Ford Thunderbird brochure. There is no mention of an all-transistor car radio anywhere in it. Here is the link :http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Ford_Thunderbird/1955_Ford_Thunderbird/1955_Thunderbird_Brochure/1955%20Ford%20Thunderbird-10-11.html
Finally, I also checked all the "Major" newspaper computer database archives and found no article information on the all-transistor car radio, for Motorola or Ford 1954-1955.
Hi again Wtskymanski,
I also found a 1956 Ford Thunderbird car brochure, and it also does not contain any information on an all-transistor car radio. Here is the link ...http://oldcarbrochures.org/index.php/NA/Ford_Thunderbird/1956_Ford_Thunderbird/1956_Ford_Thunderbird_Brochure/1956-Ford-Thunderbird-14-15
Finally, I believe that the book's author had got its facts mixed up ?? In 1954, the only all-transistor radio to be developed, was the Regency TR-1 "pocket" radio, which was announced in Oct 1954. This was "major news", for it was the very first all-transistor radio to be developed and produced. And it is well documented, with its announcement being in all the major newspapers at that time. Here is the Wikipedia link : [].
Thanks again and I hope that you are enjoying all of the above information.
You had mentioned that Ford had an all-transistor car radio, that was made by Motorola in 1954 or 1955. I had checked and found Motorola's historic information site, where they have available a lot of their published annual reports. And I carefully read thru the 1954-56 annual report years, and there is no mention of Motorola ever developing and producing an all-transistor car radio during these 1954-56 years.
1954 Motorola annual report, pages 10 and 21, company information and progress on its auto radio. No mention of an all-transistor car radio that was developed or produced.
1955 Motorola annual report, pages 9 and 21, company information and progress on its auto radio. On page 9, is mentioned that Motorola had developed a "Transistor Powered" (Hybrid) car radio in late 1955. And on page 21, it shows the (one) Audio Output transistor 2N176 that was used in this Transistor Powered (Hybrid) car radio and the parts that it will replace, which is audio output vacuum tube,transformer,vibrator, etc.
1956 Motorola annual report, page 7, it mentions that in mid-1956 Motorola had pioneered the introduction of the Transistor Powered (Hybrid) car radios to its contract customres. And its two largest contract customers at that time would of been Ford and Chrysler.
Also, I also checked all the major newspaper archives, and again there is no article information that was ever printed in the years 1954-56, for Motorola or Ford having an all-transistor car radio.
In fact, I found a Chicago Tribune newspaper article dated May 3rd, 1955 (page C7) and its title is " Motorola's Sales, Profit Up in Quarter ". Paul Galvin, the President of Motorola, is quoted in this article as saying, "The company plans to announce its first car radio models using transistors in early 1956".
Finally, Ford had used two main car radio manufacturer suppliers for its cars during the early 1950's, which was Motorola and also Philco.
Below is the main Motorola website link for its annual reports archives....
You are welcome. I know that you want the very best information to be added to Wikipedia. And as a semiconductor researcher and historian, I also want all the information to be accurate and for Wikipedia to be the very best resource, for material information.
Thanks again for your reply.
Long term block on a school IP address
Please be aware that you are in violation of the three revert rule on Chevrolet Corvette. I understand that the bouncing IPs appear to be being disruptive, but the edits are not blatant vandalism. You can be blocked for continuing to revert. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I thought that an editor has the right to remove any "new" information that is added by an editor to an existing Wikipedia page, if it is unsourced or no references were cited. And I also see "unsourced" being an exemption to the 3RR rules under number 7 of 3RR exemption rules ?
Also, weren't it be a form of vandalism, if an editor will revert and remove my reference sources that I have added to a Wikipedia page, without any good merit or valid reason ??
Thanks for your help
- Read 3RR again. #7 is very specific to BLP's. The removal isn't blatant vandalism as it appears that the other editor disagrees that the references are valid. Yes, you can remove unsourced information, but if it is repeatedly added back, 3RR applies as long as it isn't blatant vandalism. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 09:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
According to the definition of vandalism, which is also from Wikipedia, this newly "added" information is considered vandalism !! Whenever someone adds information that is "nonsense" to the existing information, then it is considered vandalism. The user 188.8.131.52 has added (- present) to the existing 2014. That new information is impossible, for the "present" is currently 2013. Also on the page of Wikipedia, the definition of vandalism = "inserting obvious nonsense into a page".
Sorry, but I disagree with your reply !
- (talk page stalker) I am sorry but I have to agree with Mufka here, vandalism is when you add nonsense such as random characters "dsgwgwb", or cursing or destroying pages and things like that. The edit above is clearly not vandalism. However i would say it is "disruptive editing" or "unsourced edits" but definately not vandalism. QED237 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your response, But unfortunately I must disagree with your opinion. If a user has a history of continuing to change names and dates, without adding reasons or citing references, then I would call it vandalism ! And if you check out the contribution history of user 184.108.40.206 since October 2013, you will see that many of user's 220.127.116.11, were reverted by other editors.
Thanks again for your reply.
- I see no evidence that this IP editor vandalized anywhere. No evidence that the editor was warned for vandalism. In any event, you must evaluate each edit for its own merits and in this case, you called something vandalism that simply was not. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi again Murka,
I am surprised by your reply, in regards that you see NO evidence of vandalism anyway on editor user 18.104.22.168 ?? Again, if you look closely at the past contribution history that user 22.214.171.124 has made since October 2013, you will see that this editor has made a lot of changes, with NO reasons cited or references added. And there has been several editors, who has reverted this user's changes, due to incorrect information be changed and added. I think that when an user has a history of making changes to names and dates, with No reason or references cited, than I think that it is a pattern of vandalism. Evidently, you disagree with my opinion and you have the power as an administrator to revert my change and add back the information made by this user, by adding back the deleted information to the Chevrolet Corvette page (2014 - present), even though were are still in the year 2013.
Finally, if you also check that the Honda Integra page, you will see that this user had made (6) different changes Today (Dec 3rd) with No reasons or references cited. And editor Lukeno94(Veteran Editor with Bronze Editor Star)had to revert all six of these changes, due to changes and incorrect information being added.
Again in my opinion, I considered it an act of vandalism, when an editor or user will have a history of changing names and dates, and with no reason or references cited.
Thanks again for your reply.
- There is nothing in this editor's history that indicates malicious intent or that the editor is acting in bad faith. You are confused as to what is classified as vandalism and I'm telling you now, unequivocally, that the edits are not vandalism. It is not a matter of your opinion or my opinion, it is a matter of established, and very descriptive, policy. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- If it is what you say that the edits or poorly referenced or unsourced, then let the editor know on their talkpage instead of acusing them of vandalism. The first step is always to try and inform this user about the situation first (if not obvoius vandalism) from what I know this user may edit in good faith and that is not vandalism. QED237 (talk) 10:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Motorola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gregory Brown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.