User talk:ZRMontez

Multiple user accounts

You appear to be running at least three simultaneous accounts. You should be aware of Wikipedia's policies on this practice, which is known as sockpuppetry. I have no reason to assume that you are doing this for any suspicious reasons, although the claim that all 3 accounts are your first cannot be true. I have posted that issue at WP:Suspected sock puppets, asking that someone more experienced in this policy assist you. Thus I am obliged by procedure to post the following section Kevin McE (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Zosimo Montez for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Kevin McE (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, what the heck is this: "now on, we follow the Radio Station Article Format: Name (<Callsign> <Frequency> <MHz/KHz>"? What wikipedia style guideline says to do so, and why aren't you following the MOS recommendations here here? Is this from some wikiproject dealing on radio stations or did you make it up because you prefer it this way and have tried to alteer the articles other time on the same way? --Enric Naval (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't know? I'll give you an example: 95.9 Big FM (DWBG 95.9 MHz). ZRMontez (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. FYI, please be careful about what you put in edit summaries. Please note that no edit to this site is final. Open content is what makes it grow. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: If you're a blocked/banned user, you are really wasting your time since each and every one of your edits is going to be rolled back and this account blocked as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Fixing the format" does not mean removing relevant information. Once more: You are about to be blocked for sockpuppeteering and vandalism. Kindly stop wasting your time on these. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

THERE'S NO NEED TO BLOCK ME. ZRMontez (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is if you're avoiding a block with this account. I appreciate your interest in the subject since I work in the industry, but you can't come here with the attitude of "ALL EDITS FINAL" along with the creation of multiple accounts and not expect to lose your edit privileges. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Do not block me. I'll stop saying "ALL EDITS FINAL". ZRMontez (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't up to me. If your account is blocked, you can appeal it to the administrator who blocks you. At least you have it in your favor that you didn't try and hide the fact that you created a sock account. If you're sincere about contributing, please take a look at WP:MOS to get a better idea of the way articles should be laid out. This is a really unusual case; you seem to want to contribute in a positive manner, but you;re going about it totally wrong. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Given the nature of the indef block of the master account, and that you continue to display the same problems of [[WP:OWN|"ownership"] with this account, I do not see any benefit in allowing this account to continue contributing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of DXPN

The article DXPN has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Part of a series of articles on radio stations in the Philippines tagged as possible hoaxes by Bluemask (talk · contribs). Please add reliable source references to establish the existence of this station.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of DXPN for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DXPN is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXPN until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bluemask (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of DWBC-AM

The article DWBC-AM has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced article about a rdaio station that fails WP:NRADIO

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)