User talk:Methron

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Sleepydre (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

I have reluctantly also blocked the editor from editing their own talk page as Methron was using it to work on a different version of the Akron, Ohio article. See this diff. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Methron! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dloh cierekim 19:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Akron, Ohio has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video link

Please stop removing the section in the article Kent, Ohio. The citation I provided uses the Template:Cite video as I am citing the video I have of the actual episode of The Tonight Show which featured Kent's water in 1995. Citing a video tape is much like citing a printed book in that it can't be shared in the article with a simple weblink, but instead is cited with as many details as can be provided (date, publisher, etc.). The "links" within the citation are not meant to prove anything; they are wikilinks to parts of the citation like publishing city and work from which it comes (which is common to do regardless of actual relevance to the citation). For instance, a citation that lists New York City as the publisher's city would have New York City wikilinked. None of the links in that specific citation are external links to outside sources. Not all citations need to be web-based to be valid or useful. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. For instance, if I cite a printed book, all you will see is the book's name, publisher info, and a page number, etc. but unless you have access to an actual copy of the book, you can't read it yourself to verify. Even if I put a quote from the book in the citation, there is no way to verify it without reading the actual book. In this case, and with something like a video, you must assume good faith on the part of the editor. I am fully aware of Wikipedia policies on editing and citations, which is why I followed the Cite Video template with the best information I could. Not everything is going to be verifiable online. And again, the links within the citation to Jay Leno and the Tonight Show are not there to serve as any proof...they are there as convenience for anyone who wants to link to the Wikipedia articles on those specific items. Look at other citations around it in the reference list as many have Wikilinks to cities, publishers, and notable people. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'm not sure I can be any clearer about this. A video cannot have a link provided as "proof" any more than a printed book can. Unless a copy of the video or an actual episode description is available, there is no way for everyone to be able to view it, which is why Wikipedia made the Template:Cite video. Since I cannot provide the actual tape online, providing as many details as possible about the video is the next best alternative. Putting a claim up without any attempt at a source is far different. And please note I did not remove the nicknames, I merely put the "Citation needed" tag on them. Another editor removed them since there was no attempt to even try to verify them as actual nicknames of the city of Akron. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you have been using the Cleveland article as an example, but remember the Cleveland article is not the sole decider of whether the source I listed is valid, nor is the Cleveland article an exact example of what every Wikipedia article must include and look like. Please also note that many of the sources in Akron's popular media section have been removed by other editors as being unreliable. If Wikipedia didn't think citing videos was a valid source, they would not have made sure a template is in place to actually cite them and they would have required more information in the template. Yes, I would love to have more details included in my citation. However, those details are not available as the video simply contains a recording of that specific episode and the year it was recorded. It is no different than citing a book that is missing a publisher or publication date. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits at Kent, Ohio

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- JeffBillman (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that editing an article in such a way as to delete the edits of another, however performed (manually, automated via TW, etc.) constitutes a reversion. You may wish to review Wikipedia's policy at WP:3RR. Thank you. -- JeffBillman (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR breach

you have made on Akron, Ohio. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Any further reversions will result in a report and appropriate block. You've already surpassed 3RR; this is you only warning. §hep ^Talk 00:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:warning

Hey, Methron. You have new messages at Shep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing or tnulling the template.

§hep ^Talk 00:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I choose to sometimes ignore him as im am now... but thanks--Methron (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Akron, Ohio. 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.

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Seal of Akron.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:New Seal of Akron.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. JonRidinger (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are the uploader of the image, but not the author as the city of Akron owns the copyright to the seal.

Better source request for Image:New Seal of Akron.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:New Seal of Akron.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for Image:AkronFlag.png

Thanks for uploading Image:AkronFlag.png. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AkronFlag.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:AkronFlag.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. JonRidinger (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for Image:GrowingpatientratesinOhio.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GrowingpatientratesinOhio.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:GrowingpatientratesinOhio.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:GrowingpatientratesinOhio.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. JonRidinger (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. the image is in regards to patent growth, not patient growth.[reply]

File:InfocisionSumma.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:InfocisionSumma.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. §hep ^Talk 20:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]