User:Rollosmokes/Archive 8

Minor edits

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Alycia Lane, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Mitico (talk)

Reversion of Gaylord Entertainment Company table

I noticed you reverted the station ownership table in Gaylord Entertainment Company to the old version that was unsortable and used extra table formatting, and did so with no explanation and without regard to it decreasing usability. Please provide reasons for such things in edit summaries, and if you feel there has been a discussed consensus somewhere about table formatting that makes sortable standard tables yield to the other kind, please point me to this discussion. Thanks for your time. --Closeapple (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of Queens

Please do me the courtesy of responding to the discussions I had already started on the Queens talk page before blindly reverting me. You are wasting my time if you do not read what I put in. It is against wikipolicy to remove requests for citation. LIC was dissolved - you removed that. Please look up the meaning of coterminous in a dictionary before you revert to nonsense. There is so much wrong, I have just scratched the surface & you are not working co-operatively--JimWae (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, it seems as you are removing and changing around facts and are intent on overloading the article. Some portions don't need to be changed, but you are intent on staking some kind of ownership claim. I did not add anything "wrong" as you claim, and my recent revertion also cleaned up a lot of over-linking and other stylistic problems with the entire entry -- such as moving the reference citations to the end of the sentence where they belong. Also, your paragraph about the LIRR and Queensboro Bridge, as they were written, are out of place in that section, and are redundant overall.

While I'm not doubting some -- but not all -- of your additions, you have to know when not to fix what wasn't broken. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Look up coterminous in a dictionary & then talk to me about Queens in 1898 --JimWae (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please cite me a wikip[edia style guide that says refs must come at end of sentence - when points are being contested, putting the refs with the point makes sense absent any wiki-guide to the contrary
• You have reverted the article 4x today - violating WP:3RR
• You have also repeatedly removed requests for citation --JimWae (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• you did all this BLIND reverting w/o using the talk page, while ignoring my edit comments & the discussion at Talk:Queens, and my extensive replies to you on my own talk page from our previous "encounter" on mostly the same issues. THAT (along with suggestions that I should defer to you because you lived there - and you thought I did not) is the sort of stuff one would expect from someone intent on owning an article --JimWae (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2007(UTC)
• I have produced 2 academic references that say the bridges & tunnels were extremely important (even unparalleled) in the history of Queens - and you blithely remove them just because there is a transportation section (that does not even mention them) yet leave in unclear statements about the IRT & statements about one (remarkable) census (when all the censi are already in the demographics section) -- and yet there is no reference to the demographics section below where other remarkable trends & results appear. IF you think the section is getting too long, pperhaps we should discuss what should only go in a History of Queens article - but you do not get to make all the decisions about what to delete from the Queens article --JimWae (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• and somewhere in the History section, it needs to be clear that Queens was NOT consolidating with itself, nor with LIC - it was consolidating with NYC - hence my saying "The New York City Borough...." You have probably been too close to the topic to see how this would be unclear to readers unfamilar with the whole idea of 5 counties in 1 city--JimWae (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• I have trouble taking your comment on overlinking seriously when it was I who previously had to exert considerable bandwidth to convince you to stop linking solitary years. Please read overlinking#overlinking again & tell me why my links are less worthwhile than yours. --JimWae (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself with every comment you make. And don't patronize me. In the grand scheme, this is NOT "NYC History according to JimWae". If you don't wish to listen to others, and want to push your point of view, do it elsewhere. It just seems to me as if you are throwing one Queens-sized temper tantrum. Rollosmokes (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Start addressing the issues & stop trying to "make me go away" --JimWae (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring and WP:3RR violation on Queens. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Sandstein (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked?

This is ridiculous. I have never questioned the validity of JimWae's contributions, or at least most of them. All I did was simply change back some of the wording he changed unecessarily, and made some other content and stylistic corrections.

As far as content goes, JimWae contracted himself by placing the tags in the article. I clarified the stuff regarding the consolidation vote -- how can Long Island City and only three of the six towns of Queens County vote on consolidation? Oyster Bay, North Hempstead, and the rest of Hempstead obviously did, just as Flushing, Jamaica, and Newtown. For the record, the vote was primarily against consolidation in Queens County.

Another clarification: Consolidation was finally approved in 1896 by an act of the New York State Legislature, not solely in the 1894 general vote as JimWae says. The consolidation bill was first passed in 1894 but was killed in the Legislature a year later because it seemed to heavily favor Brooklyn, whose residents were divided on the issue. It was later revamped and brought back to Albany for another look. I have yet to find any source where the residents in the affected areas got a second opportunity to vote on the plan.

Contradictions: JimWae himself added the "coterminous" line, and when I changed the wording, its validity was now questioned. That is petty nonsense. We also solved the issue of the county seat locations, but again it becomes questionable when I rewrote those parts. In neither case did I change any facts, nor did I remove any references as JimWae claims. And when I made a simple stylistic change -- moving the references from the middle of sentences to the end of sentences -- I get chastised by one person: JimWae.

As far as I see it, he obviously wants this portion of the article to reflect his point of view and is not willing to work with anyone else, so as long as they kowtow to his requirements. That is not fair, and this block is not fair. Rollosmokes (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

All further comments on this topic posted by JimWae have been deleted. I'm frankly tired of reading his arrogant "I'm smarter than you and I'll prove it to you" comments. Next...

You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area Last: 11/3/2007

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Re; "If it ain't broke..."

Look, it wasn't compliant, it was when I fixed it. Obviously, I'm going to change it back, and if you do the same, you are going against the Manual of Style... Plainly and simply. If you plan on replying back to me so you can yell at me, don't bother, because I will ignore it. Thanks, aido2002talkˑuserpage 22:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you even read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Full date formatting, aido?

"In general, the following formats are acceptable:

• International format: 14 February and 14 February 1991 (more common in many countries);
• American format: February 14 and February 14, 1990 (more common in the US)."

"Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should generally use the more common date format for that nation..."

—David Levy 23:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you two misunderstand what I am saying. I don't care if it is the International format or American. However, the syle guidelines say there should be no commas in dates--so, instead of January 1, 2000, it should be January 1 2000. That's what I mean. Okay? Once again, I don't care if it uses the International format or American. -aido2002talkˑuserpage 21:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Maryland Public Broadcasting

The dates I placed come from the Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook and the Television and Cable Factbook, two usually reliable sources. However, recent editions of the Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook list the airdate for all six MPB stations as 1986, apparently in error. I own copies of the 1988 and 2000 editions of the Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook, the 1988 edition lists the airdates as:

• WMPT Annapolis: July 16, 1975
• WMPB Baltimore: October 6, 1969 (off by one day)
• WFPT Frederick: 1986, no date
• WWPB Hagerstown: October 5, 1974
• WGPT Oakland: 1986, no date
• WCPT Salisbury: March 21, 1971

The Television and Cable Factbook lists the airdates as:

• WMPT Annapolis: July 16, 1975
• WMPB Baltimore: October 5, 1969
• WFPT Frederick: July 4, 1987
• WWPB Hagerstown: October 5, 1974
• WGPT Oakland: March 1, 1980 (apparently in error)
• WCPT Salisbury: March 18, 1971

According to the FCC, the first license for WGPT is file number BLET-19870713KF, while the first license for WGPT is file number BLET-19870713KG. The date in a station's first license's file number is usually a few days after the sign-on.New World Man (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The sign-on dates I have are from the 1998 version of the B&C Yearbook. Does the 2000 edition list any dates? Rollosmokes (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WJW-TV

I see you've removed the 1998 logo for WJW-TV... i thought it was different enough to be included since it had a different font for the bottom lettering, and the blue behind the "8" had a different colour. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 21:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Different background, yes. But it's still the SAME LOGO -- and that goes for the other 1998 logo you added to WEWS, which I just removed for the second time this evening. Rollosmokes (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

WSYX-TV, Columbus, Ohio

Webster's defines "redundancy" as 'unnecessarily repetitive or superflous." In the WSYX-TV article, it is not redundant to include the fact that the old WLWC-FM, Columbus that used to be owned by Crosley Broadcasting, which ALSO at the time, owned WLWC-TV, Channel 4, and was purchased and renamed by the TV station across the street. That fact is not 'unnecessarily repetitive or superflous,' because it has never been mentioned before in the article. It is a fact that pertains, in this particular case, to the past ownership of a particular radio and TV station. This notation is indeed factual, listed in FCC records, and therefore defines that past ownership. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to include all facts that pertain to a particular subject. This is a fact, that has to be included in the article. I invite your explanation as to the redundancy of a fact that has never been mentioned before in an article, obviously following the Webster's definition. I am in television right now, and am considered a broadcasting historian, based on 37 years experience (I also worked at WSYX-TV, formerly WTVN-TV), and any facts I include in an article are based on factual papers I have in my possession, or can verify through the FCC or other broadcast records.Csneed (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WE WILL TAKE THIS TO ARBITRATION. Csneed (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I refrained from commenting on this, because it's really minor and not worth arguing about. But now, I'm compelled to say this: You and ONLY YOU will "take this to arbitration," because I have already said my piece when I edited the article.

As for your claim that the WLWC/Crosley connection was "never been mentioned before in the article", well, you obviously didn't read the WHOLE ARTICLE. Dig this quote: "One of channel 6's competitors, Crosley/Avco-owned WLWC (channel 4, now WCMH-TV), was also given grandfathered protection through a similar situation." Find this as the last sentence in the second paragraph. It's been there for quite some time. Point made. Rollosmokes (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are obviously not familiar with radio-TV station ownership. The "grandfathered" protection HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WLWC-FM. Nothing at all. Never had, never did. The "grandfathered" protection applies ONLY to WLWC-TV, WLWD-TV (Dayton) and WLWT-TV, Cincinnati. Before you mention something you know nothing about, consult someone who knows the facts. The "similar situation" does not apply to the RADIO station, only the TV stations in adjacent markets. The radio station edit may be a minor one (to you). But it is a FACTUAL ONE. And you still need to brush up on the word "redundancy." Your response here, does not explain that. Or is that your normal response to anyone who has a problem with your editing? Csneed (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know...

Csneed filed an arbitration case against you here. It looks like it'll be rejected, but you might want to say something there. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've already dealt with it. Another satisfied customer. Rollosmokes (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, considering everything.. I wrote the original article on WSYX-TV.. I wrote it.. and I can delete it, too. The whole thing. I see where you have been banned from editing copy before. We will see where this one goes, too. Csneed (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'M the one sounding like a child here? Oh, exucse me.. maybe I should act like.. just another "satisfied customer." I resent that reference. Everyone is not "a child" who disagrees with you. The WJW Logo guy sounded like he had two different logo's, too, but you swung the big DELETE ax there. You accuse the Gaylord Entertainment writer of "wasting your time" after he or she has a concern over something you capriciously edited. And Jimwae seemed to have a valid point, too. You start these disputes by callously making edits without trying to first discuss the reason for such edits with the person who write the articles. That why Wikipedia has talk pages for each user. You start your own disputes, pal.. nobody does it for you. Csneed (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

KTLA logos

I know. I expected controversy to visit again with these logos, that's why i'm not angry. I'd like to see the issue resolved, though. but for now, i must go to bed, as it is late and i am tired. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 06:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC) I understand. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 14:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All I wanted in the first place was an arbitrator/mediator to oversee this dispute. Whatever that independent person decides after hearing both sides, I will live with. And I will charge you with the same incivility. Csneed (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Pet peeve...

While you've been doing a good job updating the infoboxes in TV station articles, could you please remember to re-Wikify Independent station (North America) for present and former independent stations? Thanks. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I only Wikify names of actual networks and systems in the "Affiliation" field. To me, independent means it's not a member of, or affiliated to, any network or system. New World Man (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

However, there is an article on independent stations, and the links should be utilized. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll Wikilink "independent station" in the article text, but not in the infobox. New World Man (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Capitalizing "Independent", etc.

Dies the word "independent" require capitalization?

Also, "The CW" should have the word "The" in the link.

I also placed "Primary" and "Secondary" as headers in the "Former affiliations" field instead of as a part of the individual network lines to make it easier to navigate.

I used the term "Fox Television Stations, Inc." with the "Inc." at the end because that is the legal name of the company and also the name of the licensee as registered with the FCC.

New World Man (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alycia Lane

An editor has nominated Alycia Lane, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alycia Lane (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:WCBSTV-HDlogo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:WCBSTV-HDlogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't own the infoboxes, either!

It seems like you're the only one here complaining about things like using the legal name of a station owner or whether The CW Network should be called "The CW" or just "CW" (consensus says "The CW" with the word "The"). However, I do see others linking "independent station" in the infobox, so I'll stop arguing with you on that point - however, I still don't think "independent" should be capitalized. New World Man (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

We can go back-and-forth all you want, but I'm just rtying to keep everything on the straight-and-narrow. I'm not the one who ignores an article on independent stations and refuses to restore the link. I'm also not the one who ignored the consensus against the City of license entry (which I'm against, and so are a few others), which I removed from KOVR. The "The" thing is all about proper use of grammar, as I have noted before. The same goes for the capitalization in Independent. I try not to write improperly, and I would hope others would understand that. So, take a chill pill. Cool? Rollosmokes (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A little word about "Word4"...

...he's Dingbat2007. Word4's M.O. matches Dingbat's to a T. -- azumanga (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WCTX/KMBC etc.

• 1. Everyone else (myself included) uses slashes instead of dashes to separate city names in the infoboxes. How would it be if these two city combinations were written "Greensboro-Winston-Salem" and "Scranton-Wilkes-Barre" instead of "Greensboro/Winston-Salem" and "Scranton/Wilkes-Barre"? It may make some people think it's one city instead of two.
• 2. What's wrong with listing both the low-power and full-power startup dates for WCTX?
• 3. What's wrong with displaying the full legal name of the owner/licensee?
• 4. Why can't the infobox for WCTX (or any other station that brands itself using its cable channel number instead of the over-the-air channel number) inform the reader that the branding refers to the cable channel number?

New World Man (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That IP

I had a looksee at his contribs ... most of them seem to be in good faith. However, I noticed that nearly all of his edits were stations in West Virginia. That was a particular area of interest for Neutralhomer (talk · contribs), who was banned last month for gross incivility and operating sleeper accounts. I'm gonna see if he's evading his ban.

Came back inconclusive ... worth keeping a watch on, though. Blueboy96 20:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Independent" in the infoboxes...

That's just the way I edit them, it's force of habit. I won't try to revert your edits anymore when it comes to linking "independent" because I'm sick and tired of fighting a losing battle. New World Man (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Bandit5257

Yeah, just noticed. I'd block her myself since she baldly states on her talk page that she doesn't seem to think consensus applies to her. I'd block her myself, but since I reverted her last night I'm not sure if it would be appropriate. I've raised the issue at ANI, though. Blueboy96 15:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Turns out she's been socking it up all along ... that IP that vandalized your talk page was her. Both blocked--and it turns out the IP was from Embarq, the same ISP that gave us BenH. What is it with that company? Blueboy96 20:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I Edited {main|List of Gannett Company assets}

This list asks for market not for COL. KPNX-TV is a Phoenix TV station licensed to the Phoenix suburb of Mesa. The station is in Phoenix and the market is not known as the Mesa market or the Phoenix-mesa market but just the Phoenix market. The same is true of WLVI-TV in Boston. Its licensed to the suburb of Cambridge but COL is not what is asked for. Market is WLVI is in the Boston market. Oak999 (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And I just reverted your changes, because they are incorrect and unnecessary. All of these station charts are done that way, because that's how these stations ID themselves. In fact, you contradict yourself in your reasoning for making these changes. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No they are not done like that and I just reverted your changes back. Please see list

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_NBC_television_affiliates_%28table%29 also

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_MyNetworkTV_affiliates

these lists are based on market not COL. NONE of these charts are done this way. Again this is about MARKET not how the stations ID themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oak999 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I have made my point on this but since yous seem to be the one doing the vadalism I will be taking the steps to contact a adminstrator on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oak999 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to list EVERY DAMN ARTICLE that you have an issue with, all you're doing is wasting your time. As I said before: work with the consensus, not against it. If you don't wish to do so, then perhaps you shouldn't edit television station-related articles here. Rollosmokes (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all I am new to this site but you may want to read the sites " code of conduct" it seems you are WELL out of bounds. The articles I listed where examples. I have seen no one comment on this but you so that does not make a consenses. Oak999 (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television_Stations"

New World Man

I started an draft RFC for New World Man ... would appreciate help with finding diffs, as I have to work tonight. Blueboy96 22:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:WAGA5Atlanta.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:WAGA5Atlanta.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:WTXF29Philadelphia.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:WTXF29Philadelphia.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

KPNX-Edit

I made a edit of one word "in" the KPNX-TV article and if its undone one more time I will be contacting a adminstrator. I want to make it clear what I changed on the page and why I changed it. I changed the word "for" to the word "in". You may want to look these 2 words up in the dictionary before you read any further. The station is located "in" Phoenix and "in" the Phoenix metro area. Putting "for" does not specify and is incorrect for this sentence. I will change it back if it is reverted as it is improper grammer as well as contacting a administrator. Oak999 (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, don't patronize me. And don't correct someone on grammar (or as you wrote, "grammer") if you can't get it right yourself.

Secondly, your changes are incorrect, again. KPNX may serve the Phoenix area, but is is NOT a Phoenix-licensed station. KPNX is licensed to Mesa, not Phoenix, while KTVK, KPHO-TV, KAET, KNXV-TV, KUTP, etc. are.

You can complain to an administrator all you want. But your aggressive behavior, insistence on reverting to your versions of preference, and refusal to listen to and agree with consensus will only hurt you. You better be careful with what you wish for. Rollosmokes (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You claim to know about broadcasting I have worked in the field. COL means that a station must cover that City with a "city grade signal" and ID it at the top of the hour-nothing more. This is not the 1960s. The exception on this are when a COL is in a different state such as WWOR-TV and is in regards to EAS the Emergency Alert System. KPNX is IN Phoenix its not in Mesa so the word "in" is what should be used. COL does not mean the station is "in" that city anymore. " NOT a Phoenix-licensed:" No one is talking about COL. Where is the station located? Where is the station located? Where is the station located? Its location is in Phoenix. Location====Phoenix. Its IN Phoenix. Oak999 (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wgntv1977logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wgntv1977logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wgntv1981logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wgntv1981logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wgntv1967logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wgntv1967logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wgntv1983logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wgntv1983logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

KNBC rollback

I had to roll back your edits to KNBC. The commentary in the logo galleries was necessary to stave off deletion by A Man In Black, who has decided once again that logo galleries are bad and need to be exterminated. I specifically asked RingtailedFox to put the commentary in. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Though I think some of it is a tad too descriptive (not to mention RingtailedFox has a habit of uploading the same logo several times over), I won't touch it if it keeps AMiB and the Image Police at bay. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WGN-TV

The deletionists always win, because the inclusionists lack the will to continually fight against their relentless desire to delete anything they don't like. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had many fights with them already. They always win. Firs they'll argue about copyrights, and if you show that's not an issue, they'll argue about "free content". That's why I stick with illustrations prior to 1923, because they can't touch those. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello from a fellow television-news enthusiast!

Please take a look at the discussion page for article "WCBS-TV" and see the entry, posted 7 May 2008, headed "Regarding Flagship Stations." That note is mine; I believe that it will clarify my rationale for making my earlier two minor edits to "WCBS-TV" and will show the validity of those insertions. Please feel free to contact me on the subject! Thanks! 67.180.135.133 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)67.180.135.133 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)