User talk:DLA9999

Welcome!

Hello, DLA9999, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Sontag[edit]

Hello. I have reverted your good faith edits from today. You should provide a reliable source if that information is to be entered back in. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! roguegeek (talk·cont) 20:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, where did you hear about the cancellation? roguegeek (talk·cont) 21:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you changed that. The information is true. Received from Mr. Sontag and he requested I update his page. Perhaps you can check things before you delete all the work I put in!!!! DLA9999 (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not mistaking this with the change in format for KLSX are you? MrMurph101 (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NODLA9999 (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know him personally? MrMurph101 (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I keep adding my responses here and roguegeek is deleting them. DLA9999 (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits for now, on his website franksontag.com he says there's going to be an official announcement, you should wait until his announcement until you update. Since there still is an upcoming program, saying "was the host..." is not officially accurate yet. What you're saying may be true but you need to verify it first. MrMurph101 (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DLA9999, let's just assume what you're saying is true. If that's the case, then this is clearly a conflict of interest and you should refrain from editing the page at all. Please also keep in mind you must provide a reliable source and that the source should be a secondary source. If you can not provide these, then additions like the ones you've added and re-added after being shown these policies will be reverted. Please let me know if you need any help. Thanks! roguegeek (talk·cont) 10:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

check your ego and stop deleting everything including comments on this board. DLA9999 (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

roguegeek is now labeled inconsiderate DLA9999 (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not trying to be inconsiderate, just trying to let you know how things work around here. Apologies if we appear to be biting you. To make an analogy, Before Barack Obama was inaugurated, he was labeled "president-elect" not president even though it was obvious that he was going to become president. It was not updated until the 12 noon est on Jan. 20, the official time the transfer of power took place. MrMurph101 (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murph: Can you please assist in getting information changed since we've now completely revised THREE times and it keeps getting un-done by the ROGUE? I read the policies before we did the updates. I think SOMEONE is under the impression that he "owns" this page. We made a LOT (A LOT A LOT ALOT) of changes to the posting that had nothing to do with the Impact show. They were all deleted. I just think we are dealing with a bit of a control freak. Any assistance or suggestions you can offer would be appreciated. We are very busy and live in the real (non-geek) world and do not know how to get around this person. Thanks! DLA9999 (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure where this hostility is coming from, but I'd like to recommend you please assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. I think doing so would allow a much more productive effort on everyone's part. Honestly, I think you need to read some of these links MrMurph101 and myself have provided. The welcome statement alone contains all of the core ideas Wikipedia is built on. There are guidelines and policies we as Wikipedians need to adhere to so we can make valuable contributions. You should take a look at some of these. roguegeek (talk·cont) 03:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROVEIT[edit]

Hi,

Note that I've substantially removed much of the Frank Sontag page again (essentially undoing your undo). The majority of the information was unsourced, a big problem with pages about living people, and per our policy on verifiability (more specifically WP:PROVEIT) it is up to the person who wishes to add the information to provide citations to substantiate the points. This may be difficult since Sontag himself doesn't seem particularly notable - his work as a motivational speaker is essentially unsourced beyond his personal webpage. If you have information in reliable sources that are not self-published, please expand the page with caution using these sources to verify the statements. Self-published sources can be used with caution to justify statements that are not unduly self-serving. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Fred Sontag. Thank you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your e-mail you accuse me of deleting sources on the Frank Sontag page. I deleted no sources. In this version that you reverted to, in the sections Biography, Talk Radio, The Project for Social Change and Personal views, there are exactly two sources - one to the talkradioone website, and a second to listening on Sontag's personal webpage. My edit retained both of those references (talkradioone was moved to the lead, while his "television" one was moved to a section called "Views on television") and added one more (the reference to the Mark & Brian web page that mentions him). I did remove considerable amounts of unsourced material. If there are referneces to substantiate the text, please include them as inline citations or even as simple external links - I will review and adjust the formatting and referencing appropriately. Please contact me via my talk page and not via e-mail. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PROVEIT--please stop making such random and drastic edits. all the citations were there, they were deleted in the past few days, I do not know why. I have referred this to mediation. I would appreciate you not making your extreme changes without awaiting a decision from them. you need to take a step back and not be so obsessive about this page. thank you very much.DLA9999 (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)DLA9999[reply]

Nope, you're wrong. And if I'm wrong, then feel free to replace the citations as footnotes. Mediation is not going anywhere because a) you've mis-filed the request and b) there's nothing to compromise on. The sections I removed were unsourced and per WP:PROVEIT, I'm allowed to remove them at will. So put in the time to find citations in reliable sources or stop reverting. Based on my searches, you'll have a hard time because there simply isn't much out there. Sontag is a borderline deletion case. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DLA9999 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Verbal chat 14:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked indefinitely the account, Denise!A2009, as a sockpuppet of your account. Please note that using multiple accounts disruptively on wikipedia is prohibited. If you were to continue to use accounts disruptively, your main account will receive a block. If you have any questions or concerns, you can reach me on my talk page. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009[edit]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Frank Sontag. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Verbal chat 17:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there WERE references and they were deleted! I have submitted this page for mediation, as there is an abusive editor trying to delete all the information that has been there for a long time. I did NOT put all the material on there you refer to as "unreferenced controversial biographical content." IT WAS THERE AND IT HAD CITATIONS! DLA9999 (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)DLA9999[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Frank Sontag. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Nakon 04:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will keep getting blocked until you actually engage on the talk page and support your work with actual references. Please do so. I have no objection to further material being placed on the page so long as it is appropriately sourced. I have described what I did with the sources, and you lying about the removal of them isn't helping your case. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you, DLA, at least give a link from the history to the referenced version you claim exits? Verbal chat 11:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to use the talk page of the article to engage other editors, so that we can ensure all content meets the verifiability policy. Using the knowledge and experience of other Wikipedia editors will only benefit the subject's representation in the article. Daniel (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]