User talk:Petertripp

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page WCLX has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; 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 for further information. Thank you. Tiderolls 17:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Hello, Petertripp. You have new messages at Tide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Warning vandals

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. SMC (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SMC. As the history shows, this is about the 5th time I've had to undo vandalism committed by Diane Desmond, a disgruntled former WCLX disk jockey using the pseudonym of "Lucy Frampton." I own radio station WCLX and recently posted a Stage 4A warning to her, as well as attempting to engage her. However, there is no point in trying to engage with someone who is 1/ unqualified to edit the entry and 2/ mean-spirited and clearly acting in bad faith, using words like "fart" to describe our music format (see recent history. At this point, I believe the solution is for Wikipedia to ban her and her IP address from editing the entry for WCLX. If there is no mechsanism for doing that, I will continue to monitor the page and undo her edits. Thank you. Petertripp (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Petertripp (real name: Dennis Jackson)[reply]

Re:File:FarmFresh102-9 FM-Logo small.JPG

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed you placed a free-licence tag on the image File:FarmFresh102-9 FM-Logo small.JPG; however, it is quite obviously an official logo, and therefore is usually not considered "free". This image should be tagged as fair use and a fair use rationale should be provided. Otherwise, this image may be deleted under speedy deletion criterion F9 - blatant copyright violation. If however, as it seems by your comments above, you in fact do own the copyright for this image, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions on how you can confirm the release of this image into a licence acceptable by Wikipedia. Thank you. Intelligentsium 02:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; logo rationale has been replaced with Logo FUR. SMC (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article WCLX, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant 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.

Note that I have raised this COI over at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard here. SMC (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Owner had removed self-serving content by disgruntled ex-employees now unrelated to WCLX. Please leave it alone, unless we should remove the entire WCLX listing."

I think you need to be aware that notability is not temporary. That section of history is actually the only part of the article which has been referenced by a reliable, third-party source. Simply trying to remove that section because you want those people to disappear is highlighting your conflict of interest; besides, that paragraph of text has nothing particularly promotional about your "enemies". It's a remarkably neutral commentary. As I mentioned above, I've raised this at the conflict of interest noticeboard.

As to whether the article should be deleted, I'm actually all for deletion, because aside from that one newspaper article I cannot find any real notability to justify its existence. An easier way for the article to be removed (instead of my attempting an AFD) would be for you to identify yourself as the owner via OTRS and explain your problems with the article there, and express a wish for it to be removed. I don't know if that will succeed, but at least you will be officially identified as the organisation owner. SMC (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, if you take a look at the text that you removed, would there be any parts of it that you would be willing to keep? That is, could we reach a midpoint of content to be kept that we both agree on? Just a thought. SMC (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest concern

Hello Dennis, I'm leaving this note to let you know that a discussion has been opened at our conflict of interest noticeboard regarding your recent edits to the WCLX article. I would encourage you to join the discussion to clarify matters, as there are concerns about your conduct. You will find the discussion here, thank you. -- Atama頭 18:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:FarmFresh102-9 FM small logo.JPG

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FarmFresh102-9 FM small logo.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk 03:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]