This is an archive of past discussions with User:HangingCurve. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hey Blue, I was just wondering if you could provide a source for your edits to the 5th Congressional District of Tennessee. For some reason the list of Reps doesn't match up with the one here. Also, I'm a bit confused about the renumbering thing. Are you saying that at one point Nashville fell into the 6th District instead of the 5th? I don't think it makes sense to say that the 5th District was once the 6th District. But maybe there's something I'm not understanding here. Kaldari 29 June 2005 17:35 (UTC)
Hey Kaldari, I found them by tracing it back on the Political Graveyard. According to this page, Nashville was in the 6th District until the 1930 redistricting, when it became the 5th District. It became the 6th District again in the 1940s redistricting, and then back to the 5th since the 1950s redistricting. It's hard to trace, I know ... am going to do my own set of congressional district pages soon showing how congressmen's district numbers changed with redistricting. See for yourself:
[1]Blueboy96
Ah, I think I see what you mean. However, I don't think it's helpful to say that the 5th District "became" the 6th District. Rather it should be stated that from a certain date to a certain date the 5th District included the regions foo, bar, and etc, but from another date to another date it included the regions bar, etc, and goo. I.e. the district moves, but its number remains the same. Otherwise it becomes far too confusing and is not consistent with the title of the article. You would be correct if the article were about "Nashville's Congressional District", but in keeping with precedents established for other states, the Wikipedia articles are organized by district number rather than location. Kaldari 29 June 2005 21:03 (UTC)
I'm quite upset that you have chosen to continue perpetuating the idea that the 5th congressional district of Tennessee is synonymous with Nashville's congressional district. This is factually incorrect, unverifiable, and misleading. I have put in a lot of hard work on the 5th congressional district's article. This includes painstakingly verifying all of the congressional terms (and correcting a couple of errors from the political graveyard site), and looking up the congressional boundaries in the Tennessee blue books from 1940-2000. I don't know where you get your information from, but unless you are willing to cite your sources I would appreciate it if you would quit wasting my time by forcing me to go back and continually correct your misinformation. If you continue adding misleading, unreferenced information to this article I will be force to file an RfC against you. Kaldari03:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I have added some information that you might find useful about how congressional redistricting works in Tennessee to the District 5 talk page. I apologize for my harsh tone in the previous post. I should not be so quick to loose patience with other editors. Kaldari03:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Which district has not been carried by Republicans since Reconstruction?
There's still one detail I'm not entirely clear on, but perhaps you would be able to solve: In several articles it is mentioned that a certain district has not been carried by Republicans since Reconstruction, but I haven't figured out yet if this refers to Nashville's congressional district or the 5th congressional district, or both (since they have not always been the same thing). Any chance you know the answer to this one? If you could provide a good source, that would be especially helpful. Kaldari 3 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)
Nashville itself hasn't been represented by a Republican since Reconstruction--a good source is the Political GraveyardBlueboy96
I'm starting to think my initial idea is gonna work best--there are several instances where congressmen's district numbers changed even though their district boundaries didn't. For instance, John Conyers' Detroit-based district was the 1st District from 1965 until 1993, when it was renumbered the 14th District. And Bart Gordon's 6th District was numbered the 4th for many years until it became the 6th for Al Gore's last term there (before Gordon took over). Blueboy96
I think your idea is unfeasible and problematic. Thanks to Wesberry v. Sanders all district boundaries are redrawn every 10 years. Districts may remain largely the same but they never remain exactly the same. Furthermore, saying that a particular district acted as a different district for a period of time is confusing and unhelpful. For example, the 2nd district of Texas IS the 2nd district of Texas, regardless of whether it covered a different area than it has historically during the period from 1967-2005. If you want to talk about Beaumont's congressional district than make that its own article. Would it be possible for you to change your Texas/Tennessee articles to conform with the standards that have been developed for other congressional districts - as in the 1st congressional district refers to the 1st congressional district and not a particular fixed area? Your histories of the districts are beautiful and I'd rather not have to get rid of most of them just because of a technicality. Bjoel5785 21 May 2006 23:10 (UTC)
Never mind, I've eliminated all the inconsistencies that I could find. Bjoel5785 22 May 2006 2:13 (UTC)
My Response to Edit of Kingston Ontario
Hey Dude, I live in the city of Kingston and am employed with the City Of Kingston. My distances from Toronto to Montreal were correct and accurate. I used map quest, Google earth, and Google maps to check and check again.
Hello Blueboy,
Please return the WGTE edits that I made to the state I put them in. I am manager of broadcast at WGTE and we want our website to be copied for the Wikipedia listing.
It is correct, it is rich with content, and it is much more informative than the current information.
Please return the information.
dlashelle
Hey Blue,
I just wanted to talk to you about your recent edit of the Bob Casey Jr. page.
In your edit, you mention that Casey is the first Democrat elected to the U.S. Senate "in his own right" since Joe Clark.
However, Harris Wofford won a special election to the United States Senate, defeating former PA Governor Dick Thornburgh, in Nov. 1991. Wofford won that race as an incumbent, after being appointed to the seat by Bob Casey Sr. in May of 91.
Given that Wofford did score a surprise upset in the 1991 special election, couldn't he technically be considered as having won the seat "in his own right," even though he was initially appointed to it?
I also raised this matter on the discussion page for Bob Casey Jr. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
You are clearly editing the Ten. Titans page from your Tennessee perspective. As a former Houston resident who was there during the whole Oilers move fiasco, it was more than Mayor Lanier that balked at Bud Adams conniving moves. The entire city decried what he did, and to just pin it on Mayor Lanier is completely and utterly incorrect.
--Ecumbee15:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC) I just wanted to let you know that i changed your edit on max burns page back to the district leans more republican than the old 12th.
Hello HangingCurve/Archive 1 and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Hi,
I'm a reporter with Governing Magazine, working on an article about governors' Wikipedia profiles. I see you've been tweaking Gov. Bredesen's page. Would you be willing to talk for a few minutes? Please drop me a line at cswope@governing.com
Chris Swope
Associate Editor
Governing Magazine
Blue,
Could you please explain your deletion from Ernie Eves? I don't see anything wrong with the statement that you deleted. I think that that statement accurately reflects speculation in the media at the time. I look forward to your response. Kevintoronto 15:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Ascent information was completely inaccurate--I follow sports regularly, and there is no record of any connection between Ascent and YankeeNets. Blueboy96
Incomplete edit
Hi. I see you expanded the KPBX article recently. It's a nice start (it's less of a stub now), but I see you left an incomplete sentence at the end of the third paragraph. No one wants to see that sort of thing, so would you please either finish it or delete it? (Also, while you're at it, there's a missing space in the second paragraph. I'd correct it myself, but you might as well do it in one edit.) Thanks. Ddawson00:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I had to get you again for these reasons:
1. John Kluge did not buy the Metropolitan Broadcasting Corp. lock, stock, and barrel in 1958. Kluge purchased controlling interest in the stock and became the company's chairman.
2. Of the three New York independent stations, only WOR-TV was a national superstation. WPIX was not, but it is safe to say that both WPIX and WNEW-TV's reach were greatly expanded in the 1970s and '80s. The sentence you re-worded concerning this did not have to be changed.
3. News Corp. did purchase all of Metromedia's TV group in '86. As a condition to the sale, WCVB-TV in Boston was spun-off to the Hearst Corporation (see the WCVB and Fox Television Stations articles).
4. The sentence with the Clarke Ingram reference is a good one, except it doesn't belong here, but rather in the Fox Broadcasting Company article. In fact, its presence here makes it redundant.
5. Changes made to the Yankees baseball paragraph and the purchase of WWOR-TV and Chris-Craft did not have to be changed, either. And, it's just WPIX, with no -TV suffix.
You wrote, "it has also been rumoured that United Future leader Peter Dunne could be persuaded to join a coalition with Labour, the Progressives and the Greens if he were given a high Cabinet post." This would be a remarkable reversal by Dunne which would damage his credibility so I'm very surprised. Do you have a reference for these rumours? Thanks. Nurg01:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Check out the New Zealand Herald's graphic on possible government makeups--I saw it there. Blueboy96
It later emerged that Peters had decided all along to join forces with his former National colleagues and had used his negotiations with Labour simply to win more concessions from Bolger.
New Zealand First entered into a period several weeks of negotiations with both major parties. Before the election, most people (including many New Zealand First voters) had expected Peters to enter into coalition with Labour. In fact, he appeared to promise not to align with National. It came as something of a surprise when he chose to join a coalition with National. The most common explanation for this decision involved National's willingness to accept New Zealand First's demands (and/or Labour's refusal to do so). However, Michael Laws (a former MP who served as a New Zealand First campaign manager) claims that Peters had secretly decided to go with National significantly before this time, and that he merely used negotiations with Labour to encourage more incentives from National.
Hi there...just wondering what your reference was for the statement that WWTV, WPBN and WGTU serve the Sudbury, Ontario area. WWTV is the CBS affiliate available on cable in Sudbury, but none of the stations are available OTA and Persona otherwise carries the American network affiliates out of Detroit via Cancom. (You can confirm here if necessary.)
Although I'll leave it in, I'm not entirely sure WWTV's cable carriage in Sudbury is really significant enough to be mentioned in the article (while it's by far the largest city that can actually view the station, it's still a fairly minor media market), but Sudbury absolutely doesn't have any connection to the other two stations. Bearcat22:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Please do not change the ABC/CBS affiliations again, as you have incorrectly placed them twice. The ABC affiliation left in 1953 to go to WSIX-TV 8, which is now WKRN 2, and is still the ABC affiliate. They dumped CBS in 1954, when WLAC-TV 5, now WTVF 5, signed on...and it is still the CBS affiliate. Also, there is NO SUCH THING as a "-AM" extension when referring to an AM radio station. AM is the default. Please do not keep adding the -AM to WSM. Your edits are incorrect. --Zpb5216:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, according to WKRN's history page, it was the CBS affiliate with a secondary ABC affiliationfor a year after its sign-on as WSIX in 1953 before WLAC signed on in 1954. It's been a full ABC affiliate since then. See for yourself.Blueboy96
Fair enough, but WSM-TV then also lost the ABC affiliation at the same time as the CBS affiliation, not a year later. --Zpb5216:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm ... seems odd. I always thought that in markets that had only two stations, they shared ABC programming until a third station could get on the air. Blueboy9616:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
KTVX
You have received this message because you have edited a Salt Lake City media article in the past. We have recently had an edit war regarding the wording and inclusion of a paragraph on the KTVX article. In hopes of resolving this I have put together an informal survey. If you are interested, please stop by Talk:KTVX and add a vote. Thanks, A09:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
In your edits to this article, you swapped the races of his mother and father. Did we have this wrong, or was your change a slip of the keys? Could you provide a reference, please.-gadfium17:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Just a slip of the keys--happens when you edit early in the morning. Blueboy96
Could you please provide a reference for this statement: "Some believe that Caouette actually won, only to be vetoed by the party's Alberta wing." That's an interesting theory, and I'd like to follow up on it. TGround Zero | t22:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The RNT article only says "The Social Credit Party was divided after 1962, as a majority of the caucus came from Quebec and favoured Caouette as leader. The number of members of the Social Credit caucus coming from English Canada was declining. Thompson refused to cede the leadership of the party to Caouette. This caused the party to split: most of the Quebec Members of Parliament(MPs) followed Caouette into his new Ralliement créditiste party in 1963." It doesn't say that Caouette on the leadership vote since, I think, the leader was elected by party members and not by the parlimanetary caucus. The Social Credit articlle says: "The party's Quebec wing, led by Réal Caouette, nevertheless had a major breakthrough in that province in the 1962 election, returning 26 Members of Parliament (MPs) from the province. Social Credit won only four seats from English Canada. Although Thompson made Caouette the party's deputy leader, the linguistic imbalance caused severe tensions in the Social Credit caucus. On September 9, 1963, the party split into English Canadian wing and a separate Quebec party led by Caouette - the Ralliement des créditistes." Neither article suggests that there was a fixed vote. Ground Zero | t14:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Please stop clearing pages in the Alan Eagleson page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.
5aret05:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Blueboy96, I don't know anything about the nature of your edits on this page other than that it is not blatant vandalism. I believe 5aret got confused because of the layout of the history page, but either way you might want to explain it calmly on his talk page...just reminding you that biting the newcomers always does more harm than good :-). I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about, though, so I trust you can be fully capable in helping this new user understand the difference between vandalism and good-faith edits. JHMM13 (T | C) 05:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for enhancing the Sick's article! I did a bunch of work on it the other night, but ran out of time before I could add the details about the Pilots' tenure there. It did need to be there, so I am glad you did it! :) Thanks again! -- ManekiNeko | Talk23:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo11:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Virgil Goode
Stop reverting the Virgil Goode page unless you have some source tying Goode to Harry Byrd. The evidence you have cited is that Goode is 1) from the Southside 2) was "very conservative" (actually Goode's record as a Democrat, according to National Journal Rankings, was not all that conservative) 3) represents the Fifth District which had been represented by Byrd Democrats in the past. You need more than that to justifiably tag Goode with the pejorative "Byrd Democrat."
I noticed you were active on a bunch sports pages. My friends and I started a sports wiki that you may be interested in. It uses Wikipedia's software but we made a lot of technological improvements to allow for more news and opinion articles. The site is (deleted a website address blacklisted by Wikipedia). We're not "officially" launching until March 6th, but you can feel free to poke around and add content. Let me know if you have any questions.--Awrigh0120:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:The cw.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BRossow14:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Is this another instance of congressional staffers trying to monkey with their bosses' pages? Noticed an awful lot of IP addys among the edits--don't have time to check them to see if they come from the House. Blueboy9619:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Userbox Controversy
Sir, I regret you inform you that userboxes will most likely be nonexistent in a number of days, to weeks, or even months when considering the voluminous amount of the aforementioned. Rob McKay has informed me, and his user page details the erasing of userboxes by extreme admins, and it seems they are winning. This is also evidence of the rapid deleting of templates and userboxes. Please take a look at the Deletion log to see. Individual admins are also doing their share of damage to userboxes. Kelly Martin deletes many (and a lot of the templates she deletes are often reviewed, and reinserted into the namespace), as well as Mushroom. Please inform others, show your support for userboxes, and take individual codes from any userboxes you may have and replace your template userboxes with them, so as to prevent any other admins from attempting to delete them. There may in fact be a cabal. Thanks. Эйрон Кинни17:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
No, it does not link to a diambig page, BUT we should avoid redirects anyway. I mean, you should have at least done this: ((Atlanta, Georgia|Atlanta)). However, why should you assume that Atlanta should be referred to without its state anyway? I mean, I think it is a bit arrogant to assume that everyone knows where Atlanta is. It is an encylopedia and should therefore be objective and should not make assumptions about one's base knowledge. --Arch2606:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, as long as I'm here, I'll resply to Arch26. It is Associated Press style, which is used in nearly all mainstream media, to use big city names without state names attached. That style rule applies to cities like Boston, Houston, New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. On the other hand, if one wants to say Springfield, it is best to identify the state.
skywriter21:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
John Lewis
Hi, This pertains to your most recent edit of the John Lewis page.
I do not understand this sentence and am hoping you can and will shed light.
At the moment, it states:
"His first run for elective office was in a 1977 special election for the 5th District, which resulted when Andrew Young was appointed as ambassador to the United Nations."
If Bond held that seat and left for the UN, then this sentence can not be true: "Lewis became the first African-
American to represent Georgia in either house of Congress since Reconstruction."
Hello BlueBoy96,
It is not clear why you reverted the John Lewis page to writing that is not easy to understand. The editing I did to the page yesterday removed the confusing language and passive voice, established chronology and used active voice. Please do not ignore this message or the message on the John Lewis Talk Page. The revision also removed the error that previously stated John Lewis was the first Afircan-American to represent Georgia. Please explain why you hve reverted this page to language that is difficult to understand. And Please explain why you deleted John Lewis's name from his autobiography. It violates Wiki ethos to revert a page without discussing it on the Talk page, in the editing summary, or reply to messages left on your Talk page.
Thank you.
skywriter17:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
WVPX
In your February 20, 2006 edit of the article on television station WVPX, you wrote that WAKR "often [beat] the other stations in the [Akron/Canton market] by margins of more than two to one." That sounds kind of high to me. Do you have any authority for this statement? --Hillrhpc21:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
WJCT
Hello. We were very surprised to see your edits to the WJCT entry, as they reinstate incorrect information without comment or citation.
The most significant is your reinstatement of language inappropriately promoting Gainesville’s station in the WJCT entry. Even though this language is part of the original entry, it has never been accurate. Further, your deduction that WJCT “recently” added new programming sources is incorrect. WJCT-TV has always broadcast programs from sources outside PBS, a fact which we can document with newspaper articles, programs guides and other print materials dating back to 1958.
We’re following the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures, and getting in touch with you directly. What’s going on?
Please do not combine the three rows in the Duke Cunningham article succession box into one row. The fact that the three districts are essentially the same area (but not exactly the same area) is irrelevant. For bookkeeping purposes, those are different districts. --Asbl16:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
"This is bad form"? I looked at your last edit and it was full of run-on sentences and other stylistic errors. Not to mention a lot of information that was added on by you, in an effort to "make it easier to read" was stuff that really didn't belong. Some of the RKO General stuff you added can be found within the RKO General entry, so it shouldn't be included in WWOR-TV.
BTW, as I learned quite some time ago, being a New York station doesn't immediately ensure "flagship" status for a television network, especially if the station and the network aren't co-owned. So, on that basis alone, WWOR was a flagship station of UPN when Chris-Craft owned half of the network (1995-2000). For the last six years the real flagship station of UPN has been WPSG in Philadelphia, and WWOR has been an affiliate. The same will be said of WPIX when it joins CW in the fall.
I don't know wbout you, but I have several writing style guides at my disposal, and my revisions are both professional as well as Wikipedia-friendly. I believe what I've written so far on Wikipedia has been very clear and, most importantly, accurate. I suggest you pick up a thesaurus, and a copy of the Penguin Handbook for future reference on how to write clearly. Rollosmokes07:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed by an automated bot. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact the bot owner // Tawkerbot223:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect syntax error, you forgot wikilinks on the redirect and it caused the bot to think you were blanking -- Tawker23:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
WXYZ
The recent rewrite of the WXYZ entry has been a researched and collaborative effort with current and former WXYZ employees and authored by a former WXYZer to give the station the credible entry it deserves. Certain elements including the station’s legal identity, Channel 7 of Detroit Inc, were included for searching criteria on the web. Your recent rewrites have given a certain misinterpretation to the events that have already been detailed by those who lived through them at the station. So it was disheartening to say the least that before this could be submitted for appreciation that a North Carolina user is editing a history that’s already been recorded in two recent books. There’s also been no explanation other than “clean-up” as to why elements and key figures in the basic history of the station have been deleted or re-worded. The timing is odd to say the least that its now drawn this attention. The references and text links were meant to focus on a heavily historied entity from the last 57 plus years. Listing coverage area was meant to present the coverage under certain grades of signal strength. The ABC divestiture and the hand over to Scripps have also been reinterpreted by too many users and the actual events as they relate to WXYZ have been assembled. The rewrite has also led to creating at least four other articles culled from pieces of personal, recorded and Wikipedia information using Wxyzdan. The article’s final wording was to be edited today until it kept getting injured (in poor form).
So please, for the future until the article is appreciated focus on your other endeavors.Wxyzdan 04:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)WxyzdanWxyzdan04:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
RE: Continued Plagiarism
Look. I’m now trying to get the originator of this article to help edit it. Thanks for your overzealousness in contributing. But you are merely taking someone else’s work and changing them into your own phrasing and using extraneous details from other Wikipedia articles. That’s bold considering the time spent on phone calls, e-mails, over coffee and then actually culling through different books and mourged articles to assemble information for a credible reference for this station. You’ve taken our work and writing and transformed it into your own. It’s now (or was) actually harder to read with cluttered details, passive and phony tense phrasing and now incorrect details, dates and conceptions. You’ve tripled the number of sentences starting with “However” in one paragraph. Why is this article getting this attention (or vandalism) that it didn’t have before.
A few photgos and editors didn’t know they weren’t working in the news department because it was only “six-man.” 40 years ago. That historical embellishment adds a misconception for a reference article. Bonds, who recently was hospitalized, started in ’64. He was at ‘Keener in 1963. The references and links are in there for readers to go to those articles. Adding extraneous stations from other Wikipedia information is cluttering the article. Now this is at least the third time that your ‘edits’ have lead to incorrect details-facts. As in WXYZ radio was not 1370. You also completely deleted the entire WXYZ radio article before it could be edited. That station maybe even more legendary then the TV station for all the successful nation programs it launched. We’d figure a true buff would have relished the inside details rather then… steal the work. Do you see Wxyzdan editing the English in your articles???
All this is going to an administrator.
Wxyzdan 16:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)WxyzdanWxyzdan16:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
WSWB/WOLF- TV
Hey where do you get your info on these stations? As a broadcasting buff I'd like to learn more about their history. Heartbreak1980Heartbreak 05:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Democratic congresspeople
Hey Blueboy96. I've run across your edits to Harold Ford, Jr. and a few other congresspeople and wanted to drop a note reminding you that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Even when a district has voted for Democrats every election throughout its history, stating that the district will vote for the Democrat in the next election (when the candidates haven't even been named) doesn't adhere to Wikipedia policy. I'm all for describing a district as "heavily democratic" or the like, but predicting the outcome of an election goes too far. FYI, I'm a Democrat supporter like you, but my political persuasion (usually) takes a backseat NPOV and similar policies when editing here. Anyway, I didn't want you to think I was a Republican operative trying to shoot you down ;). - Jersyko·talk17:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You're right, there are districts where it appears safe that Democrats will continue to be elected. However, what if the Democrats nominate a candidate who is revealed to be a convicted pedophile the day before the election and a Republican wins? The entire South used to be an extremely safe area for Democrats . . . but that started to change 30-40 years ago and now essentially the opposite is true. My point is that no election's outcome is pre-determined, especially when the candidates haven't even been picked. Again, I think it's appropriate to say that a district has leaned Democratic for years, but predicting that it will remain so in an uncoming election violates Wikipedia policy. I encourage you to continue noting that certain districts lean one way or another, but without the predictive language. Happy editing. - Jersyko·talk19:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Bro Ive passed the studio many times on Hwy 315 in plains twp. Ill have to check it out.
Re:Translators
They usually air a card during the day with a list. But you dont get them down there. You may have to send an E-Mail via their websites. www.wyou.com , www.wbre.com , www.wnep.com , www.nepatoday.com best can think of.
Re: Translators
WYOU and WBRE do have bad sites as well as that NEPA Today site but I'm a fan of WNEP's site though. They are a very extensive site. Although, they should list the translators.
Bill Bonds
The article on Bonds was expanded nicely. Nice job... Check him out on imdb.com for more and the Detroit Free Press archives for even more. Well written! You should e-mail his contact person for pics. There's also a lot to say on his public battles with former Detroit Mayor Colmen Young. But, WXYZ is still getting some other help. ~~Wxyzdan~~
1993
The 1993 election wasn't the "most lopsided" election result, nor was it the biggest defeat for a major party in Canada. The 1987 sweep of New Brunswick by Frank McKenna surpasses both.Habsfan|t02:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Verifiability policy
Hi Blueboy, I recently ran across an incorrect fact that you inserted into a couple of Wikipedia articles which unfortunately went uncorrected for an entire year. Seeing as how Wikipedia is often treated as an authoritative reference and even cited in newspaper articles and other sources that themselves become references, I cannot emphasise enough how important it is to abide by the Wikipedia policies concerning verifiability and original research. Just because you know something to be true does not meant that you can add it to a Wikipedia article. As the verifiability policy states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources" and "editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors." Please read over both of these policies to make sure that your edits are not in violation. Kaldari16:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The incorrect fact was the assertion that part of Brentwood lies in Davidson County. It looks like this was even corrected back in October, but then you reinserted it last month. It was also added to the Davidson County article, which has been corrected. Obviously, this is not a very significant error, but without citing your sources, it's likely that a more significant error will happen in the future. Since many of the articles you edit are political topics, this is especially important to consider. Compare for example, the Phil Bredesen artice with the Nashville Tornado of 1998 article. Nothing in the Phil Bredesen article is cited, so there's no way to know if any of it is true or not. In the Nashville Tornado of 1998 article, however, almost every single word is cited, so it's easy to verify and to find out how reliable its sources are. As the John Seigenthaler incident demonstrated, one bogus sentence can undermine the credibility of the entire encyclopedia. It's better to have no information at all than information that can't be verified. Kaldari18:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
After beng unable to find any part of Brentwood that extended into Davidson County on maps of Brentwood, I sent an email to the Brentwood city government. They replied that often people market their Davidson County properties as being in "Brentwood" to try to increase the sale value. Kaldari22:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Brentwood/Davidson County
No part of the city of Brentwood lies in Davidson County. However, this is a common misconception because there is a heavy commercial area on the Davidson County side of the dividing line. Most locals refer to that as "Brentwood", though it actually is not. My $0.02 --Zpb5201:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Re: WCBS-TV
I bust your chops for your sometimes sloppy and unverifiable edits, but I'll give you an reply to your query: I've forgotten who replaced Jim Jensen on WCBS-TV (you've got to add that -TV suffix when discussing channel two in New York). It may have been Brian Williams, now of NBC Nightly News, but I have to do some serious digging to find this one. Rollosmokes07:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Your recent edits border between helpful and sloppy. You keep forgetting that, when referring to WCBS Television, you've got to add the -TV suffix as many times as possible, because there is ALREADY a New York station using the WCBS calls -- on 880 AM. Also, please don't change "channel two" back to "WCBS" or "WCBS-TV", because the reader will know what "channel two" is referring to through reading the whole article. Rollosmokes06:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Well Thelma's response came in this morning. Lots and lots of content. There is a ton of new issues for you to reply to. jbolden1517Talk20:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
David L Rattigan on Every Nation mediation
Hi, Blueboy, just writing to clarify a few things and clear up any lingering bad feeling. Did you interpret my comments as a personal attack? I am sincerely confused by what happened between me and the mediator, as I didn't intend a personal attack at all, and I seem to have been treated like a troll. For what it's worth, my sole intent was to bring the Wiki policy on original research to light on the discussion, and I was quite upfront that they were only tentative comments based on a first reading of the material. I found it quite ironic that it would be interpreted as a personal attack, since I am myself an ex-charismatic and naturally suspicious of charismatic groups like Every Nation. Cheers. David L Rattigan15:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
WTNH-TV
Just because, as you claim, "most newspapers--or at least my hometown one, the Charlotte Observer--refer to TV channels by number rather than spelling them out", that does not mean that the practice is correct STYLISTICALLY. Most style guides will tell you that single-digit numbers should be written in WORD FORM, not numerically. Of course, newspapers do what they want because of space limitations. And, last time I checked, Wikipedia is **not** a newspaper.
BTW, WTNH has ID'd themselves as WTNH-TV in the past. That's what the call letters were officially changed to back in 1971. And, if you read my writing carefully, you would see that I mentioned that "the radio stations were spun off subsequently to new owners" following the sale to Capital Cities. Your edit there is redundant. You need to stop changing shit just because it reads better for YOU. Rollosmokes07:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
What I have offered you is only CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM. You can either take it or leave it alone. CoolKatt has no right to bring you into a dispute between me and him, especially considering that he has disputes with other editors hanging over his head. You shouldn't let him use you like that. Rollosmokes07:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Ford and seat history
Blueboy96, I noticed your recent edit to Harold Ford, Jr. regarding the 9th District seat history. Your edit summary stated that it didn't look it could be added on the district page, which puzzles me, as the district page contains a large portion of the information you added to the Ford article already (Tennessee's 9th congressional district). The additional information could be added to that article, provided that proper context is provided and it is written in a neutral style. Perhaps you could try to add it there, if you feel like the additional information is necessary, keeping context, scope, and NPOV in mind? - Jersyko·talk18:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense to me. At all. Can you point me to where this discussion is taking place? I'd like to throw my two cents in in harsh disagreement if you can. Thanks. - Jersyko·talk18:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, what Bjoel is saying makes sense to a degree, but I don't think it prevents you from adding the histories. Yes, district boundaries change (and districts are eliminated) constantly. However, I disagree with him/her that the history section of district articles must only discuss the history of the numerical district (even if it has moved from one side of the state to the other). To the contrary, it should discuss the history of the numerical district (its location, boundaries, etc.) but also the political history of the locale in which it is currently located (i.e. party patterns, past representatives for the same area, etc.), perhaps drawing a distinction between the two histories through separate subsection headings. Bjoel's approach is far too narrow for a resource like Wikipedia that can update its articles instantly when districts are redrawn, it really only makes sense for a paper encyclopedia. Anyway, perhaps I'll message Bjoel and I'll see where these standards for district articles he/she refers to are, if they're actually written anywhere. - Jersyko·talk18:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't prevent him from adding the histories. My problem was with Blueboy96 presenting the history of Memphis' district as the only history of the 9th district so I edited it to reflect the actual history of the 9th district. The addition of the history of a Memphis seat is fine but couldn't be done for every geographical area in the country and is therefore limited. For example, what about Fayette and Tipton counties? I would guess that sometimes they've been a part of Memphis' congressional district and other times they haven't. Is someone going to write their congressional histories? Of course not. The numerical approach is the only approach that succesfully covers all geographical areas throughout an entire state's history. This doesn't preclude a secondary history of a particular geographical area in addition to the history of the numerical district. - Bjoel578512:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
That would work for a big city like Memphis, Nashville or Charlotte--but for all 435 districts? That just isn't realistic. My original compromise--putting the seat histories in the current occupants' articles--probably works best. Blueboy9621:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Those 435 districts are temporary. They do not have historical geographic boundaries that are consistant. Your ideas are rather baffling to me. What is the purpose that you are trying to accomplish? If you're wanting to give historical context to current elections, then create an article like 2004 Tennessee 3th Congressional District election and put in a paragraph about how Southeastern Tennessee (or whatever) has traditionally been respresented by Republicans. If you just want to document who has represented a certain county or city or square mile of rural countryside, create a Politics of Wherever article. If we did actually attempt to create 435 lists of who has historically represented the current political boundaries of 435 different districts (which is arguably impossible and in many cases would include 2 or more people at the same time), we would have to scrap all the lists and start over every 10 years. Is that really what you want to do? What's wrong with creating a Politics of Blah County article for every county? Wouldn't that theoretically be comprehensive? And you could actually build on each list indefinitely instead of having to move or recreate them every ten years. Really, all of the information you have been adding about the history of congressional districts should be put in Politics of Wherever articles. Congressional districts only exist for 10 years at a time. They do not have "histories", at least not histories with reliable continuity. Kaldari20:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
North Carolina 9th and 10th Districts
In light of the Jersyko-Sholom compromise, I've moved the geographical histories of the 9th and 10th districs back to the district pages. So long as we keep it clear what each of the histories and lists of past representatives refer to I think this can work. - Bjoel5785, 18:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
KPIX-TV
I'm reverting the date the station began identifying itself back to 2005. While I don't doubt that you may have heard the station refer to itself as CBS5, for those of us from the SF Area who watch regularly, there was no real effort by the station to rebrand itself until after it dropped the "Everywhere" tagline (2004), edited the news open (2005), shut down the PIX Page (2005), and launched cbs5.com (2005). Before cbs5.com was launched, pretty much all on air station promotion referred to the station as KPIX-TV Channel 5. If you can find something more concrete, please feel free to comment and change it back. Thanks
-RexTraverse04:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find some older press releases from KPIX and try to figure this out. Adding that they began using CBS5 might be a good compromise, if you want to add that to the page. Thanks. -RexTraverse23:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Re: Philadelphia
This is not meant to be a harsh criticism of your work, which is great for the most part. But, as I have mentioned to you before, you're edits and additions are inconsistent in quality. Sometimes you make changes in style and tone when words are changed and other grammatical errors are overlooked. You also tend to add some information that sounds repetitive and redundant, and sometimes just doesn't belong in a particular article. Some examples:
On WCAU-TV: "CBS decided to affiliate with channel 3 and sell channel 10, ending a 47-year relationship (and three-and-a-half decades of ownership). This decision appeared to make little sense on paper. WCAU was a solid runner-up to longtime ratings leader WPVI-TV, while KYW had been a very distant third for more than a decade."
I changed that back because: 1) like I've told you before, single-digit numbers should be written in WORD FORM, not numerical form (geez, I sound like a broken record), a fact that you will find in almost all style guides; and 2) the mention of the deal making "little sense on paper" sounds like it is non-NPOV.
"NBC's motivation was obvious -- it saw a chance to get an owned-and-operated in Philadelphia, which it had sought since the 1950s. New World had recently partnered with Fox and planned on turning WCAU into a Fox affiliate, as it was with almost all of its stations. New World found the chance to win its new partner a VHF station in the nation's 4th-largest market too much to resist...Fox planned to move all of its programming to WCAU, while New World planned to keep Fox Kids on WTXF..."
Reasons for my reverting this paragraph: 1) Your revision implies that NBC had sought to get a Philadelphia TV station of its own for more than 40 years, when they already had one previously -- NBC owned channel three from 1956-65, as it is mentioned later in this article (and also in KYW (AM), KYW-TV, WKYC-TV and WTAM); 2) the "New World found the chance to win its new partner a VHF station in the nation's 4th-largest market too much to resist" line was already used in WPSG, and it should stay in one article or the other, but not both; and 3) the mention of Fox children's programming moving to WCAU is pretty much useless at this point.
I had similar problems with your WPSG revisions, but I see you have redone some of them, and they read better than the previous ones. Even when I reverted, I've kept kept some of your additions. So, unlike our friend CoolKatt number 99999, don't get offended if I revert or modify you. As I see it, it's all professional, and I don't get offended when someone does it to me. Rollosmokes18:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I put a "citation needed" tag on that "Some have argued ..." addition (which in any event is a classic example of weasel words). Do you have a source? I don't recall when I did the original research for the article any serious claim beyond speculation that it cost Shaheen the election ... it was close but not that close that any affected votes might have made the difference. The point is that it was illegal, no matter what, and shouldn't have been done.
I recently added more information on Group W regarding the history of its radio and TV station operations. However, I feel the need to clarify my reasoning for reverting your recent edits:
1. Irrelevant information in regards to this article include: a) WEWS and WXYZ-TV being Scripps-Howard's largest stations; b) WEWS being the original CBS station in Cleveland; and c) WJZ-TV being the third station to affiliate with ABC. This line belongs within the WJZ-TV article itself.
2. The line "Under the terms of the deal, CBS bought a minority share of Group W's television stations while Group W bought a minority share of CBS' owned-and-operated television stations", is incorrect. The original agreement created a new station division which would be MAJORITY-OWNED (55 percent, IIRC) by Westinghouse, with CBS as minority owner (45 percent). This is the division under which KCNC-TV, KUTV, and WFOR-TV were placed following the NBC-CBS/Group W/WCAU-TV trade. KYW-TV was also part of this division, as CBS purchased a minority share in that station. It wasn't until the 1996 acquisition of CBS by Westinghouse that ALL of the two companies' stations became one.
3. As far as the Miami portion of the swap, WCIX/WFOR-TV was a NEW PURCHASE for Group W, even though they only owned 55 percent of the station initially.
I had to remove the mention of WMAQ and WBBM being sister stations as a result of the merger. For one, this info is already found in WSCR and WBBM (AM). And secondly, if we mention this, then we'd have to do the same for WINS and WCBS-AM, KNX and KFWB, and KYW and WPHT. There's no room for all of that, and it will divert away from the main focus of the section.
I also changed the line "Except for KYW-TV, the five stations that comprised the core of Group W's television unit for most of its existence were strong performers in their respective markets, usually ranking first or second in the ratings." I took out the KYW-TV reference, because they were a top-ranked station during the 1970s, mostly because of Eyewitness News. It wasn't until the early-to-middle 1980s that the station's fortunes begin to change. Rollosmokes06:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I took out the Viacom stuff because it doesn't fit in with the central theme of the article, which is about Group W, which ceased to exist after Westinghouse Electric bought CBS. The info about the Infinity purchase, the corporate name change to CBS, and the merger with Viacom can be found in Westinghouse Electric Corporation, CBS, and Viacom.
Also, a couple of other notes: KUTV was purchased by NBC in 1993. And I brought back WPCQ for obvious reasons, even though it was a Group W station for only six years. Rollosmokes17:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
"Soon after NBC took control of channel 30, the Travelers Insurance Company won a construction permit for channel 3 (WTIC-TV, now WFSB). NBC realized its UHF experiment was a lost cause and sold WNBC-TV to Balabran Corporation in 1959."
I cut-and-pasted this message I left on CFIF's talk page, since this dispute concerns you as well.
"What do you think should be done about him? David Levy won't get involved, and now CoolKatt has enlisted Firsfron of Rochester to support him.
"Firsfron left me two messages on my talk page, including the same sentence twice, asking me to stop labelling others' work as "vandalism". I left him a note on his talk page, explaining my side of the story. He responded by telling me that he "didn't bother to read this message", and that he "(didn't) care, and I'm again asking you not to violate Wikipedia policy". If he doesn't care about what I have to say, then why should I care about what he has to say?
"Last time I checked, Firsfron is NOT AN ADMINISTRATOR, so to me his opinion has no weight. We need to build up a stong case between ourselves against CoolKatt, either through Request for comment or some other means, because now he's feeling even more empowered and he needs to be brought down."
The fact that he attempted to use you as a pawn in his game should tick you off. Heck, it would tick me off also. But something must be done, this is getting ridiculous. Rollosmokes17:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
We have been working well together recently, so I feel you can give me good feedback on this: see my talk page in regards to this silly feud between CoolKatt and myself, and let me know what you think. Rollosmokes08:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we should blow up the current RfC against CoolKatt and start up a new one, because it seems the current one will not result in some kind of resolution (unlike the BenH RfC). CoolKatt is again labelling my edits as vandalism (specifically on WKBS-TV (Philadelphia) and WGTW-TV) and something really needs to be done. This time, I would like to be the one starting up the RfC. I may even attempt to use mediation as well.
Here's one more gem from CK, from WKBS and WGTW: "!-- Do not remove the merge tag. Doing so is considerd vandalism. --" So, I guess that means anyone who removes HIS mandatory merge tags (or his worthless "trivia") is committing vandalism? You make the call. Rollosmokes14:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand that you're not from the New York area, so trust me when I tell you these things:
1) The correct spelling is DIANNE Doctor (and here's proof). The accompianing article was also corrected to emphasize this fact.
2) Also, I had to eliminate the paragraph "Many of WCBS-TV's personalities during this time were New York television legends in their own right...", mostly because to tag the label "legends" on them, with the exception of Frank Field and perhaps Rolland Smith and Warner Wolf, is a pretty strong pronouncement. Carol Martin and Michelle Marsh may come close, but they're not as revered as Sue Simmons (certainly not in terms of longevity). Dave Marash's time in New York was a blip. And Tony Guida has worked at other places before and after WCBS-TV. Because they're well-known local personalities, that doesn't make them automatic "legends".
Not that your changes weren't relevant, but they were all redundant and did not need to be expanded further. Most of what you revised -- especially that CBS/ABC thing you put in there -- can be considered speculation. In reality, there was no way either of those two networks were going to switch from a powerful VHF station to a low-rated UHF. I seriously doubt that any discussions between Thomas Television (the original owners of WATR-TV) and CBS or ABC even took place.
One thing I've learned is that you shouldn't overwrite sometimes, as you can veer off the main focus of your story, or in this case, write something that reeks of manufactured speculation. NBC had its reasons for staying with channel 30 all of those years, and the Thomas family had their reasons for selling channel 20 after losing NBC. Now, unless you've done some research into what those reasons **were**, then let's add it. Otherwise, keep it short and simple. Rollosmokes06:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Canadian articles
Please be more careful in sticking your bits of "analysis" into Canadian election articles. The articles are supposed to be encyclopedic, and the reader is supposed to make up their own minds. Your analysis also tends to be far too broad.Habsfan|t16:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Look, I like you. I believe that you offer good information, and you generally mean well when you contribute. However, this article has enough problems right now with the "tug-o'-war" between myself, CFIF, and CoolKatt (who has filed a token RfC against CFIF upon returning from his 24-hour block).
I had to revert again because you are still over-expanding in areas that don't need to be expanded further (i.e. the Fox/Chris-Craft merger and the ramifications of the UPN-WB merger on the Fox-owned UPN stations), writing redundant information (no need for "Its transmitter, for instance, remained at the World Trade Center along with the other major New York stations"), and adding inaccurate information (for the actual timeline of General Tire's expansion into broadcasting, see this page). Please, keep it simple. Rollosmokes08:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: KYW-TV
First, I won't doubt the actual date of commencing operations. Secondly, the mention of the rebranding to KYW-3 was already mentioned in the news operation section (redundancy). And, thirdly, no matter which way you say it -- whether it's Westinghouse who moved or KYW-TV that moved from Cleveland to Philly, it's still the same thing.
Nitpicking...you keep changing single-digit numbers written as a word to a number. This is incorrect from a stylistic point, as I've said to you before. And you keep over-expanding some sentences that should be left alone. Rollosmokes08:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Citation
Hello. You have removed a citation needed tag from WSAZ-TV. I added this citation tag and you removed it without citing the claims on the article. As such, I have added the tag back in. Please do not remove these tags. Have a nice day. Ajwebb23:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
NC Constitution
You deleted the following from the NC Constitution article:
Article 2, sections 3 & 5, sub-section two states that No county shall be divided in the formation of a representative district. This provision is known as the "Whole County Provision." However, in 1981, the federal Justice Department ruled that this provision was inconsistent with the Voting Rights Act. The state thus ignored the Whole County Provision until 2002. That year, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution's equal protection clause presumed single-member districts and was thus a limitation on the Whole County Provision. It can also be argued that the "one person, one vote" rule from Reynolds v. Sims also limits this provision.
...Geez, I had no idea that old man Bahakel has passed on. So one would assume the possible break-up of Bahakel Broadcasting is a conditional, posthumous occurance? And, are there any other parties interested in WCCB?
Now, to your original request: it's gonna take a lot more than a petition for the current FCC to even consider pulling Sinclair/Cunningham/Glencarin's licenses. As long as the present climate prevails, I think we'll see the Fairness Doctrine return in some form before Sinclair loses any television station license. But, it's a noble effort by you nevertheless. Rollosmokes07:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
WSYX
I revised your recent changes for these reasons:
1) There was no need to change the wording describing the grandfathered protection situation between channel six and Cincinnati's WKRC-TV under Taft ownership. There was no need to expand the addendum on WLWC/WCMH-TV being in similar circumstances under Crosley/Avco ownership, as that can be explained in the WCMH-TV entry.
2) Also, though most of us familiar with the inner workings of television and radio know what a "Grade B" signal contour is, let's assume that the majority of Wikipedia readers DO NOT KNOW what it implies. Using the term "overlapping signals" or something similar, while it means essentially the same thing, is better for the broadcasting novice who may come across these articles.
3) As far as the duopoly situation goes, I corrected the number of full-power stations from eight to six -- noncommercial stations don't count. So I resimplified that sentence again to reflect this. Rollosmokes14:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Re: CFL USA
Why do you feel that the text in CFL USA is a copyvio? It is certainly a source, but it is not the only one in the making of this article. kelvSYC05:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The purchase of the Yankee Network didn't give General a 25% stake in MBS--that's a big-time mistake. The best available evidence indicates 6%. I've never seen any evidence that the purchase of Bamberger gave General a 75% share of MBS--the most reliable available sourcing indicates that it was probably 56%. See Thomas Porter Robinson, Radio Networks and the Federal Government (New York: Arno Press, 1979 [1943]), 28–29. As the relevant note explains in detail, Kuhlmann did not "recommend" General's licenses be stripped, he ruled that they be stripped. And so forth. You're either using Wikipedia articles as sources (you should know that's a no-no) or simply regurgitating mistaken online info without doing a scratch of real research. I'd really like to assume good faith, but (a) I've had to correct your errors for a fourth time now, (b) you never provide a single source for any changes you make, and (c) you completely disdain the edit summary. Perhaps you have a unique vision of Wikipedia (and of sound journalistic practice) you'd care to explain.—DCGeist21:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Tillie Fowler
I was just reading your revision of this article, and I am not sure if it is an improvement. It contains a lot of weasel words and what looks like original research, and I don't see any sources for what you put in. Do you intend to revise it? Just so you know, I have this article on my watchlist, because there has been a lot of POV editing on it. Jeffpw20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
05:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
|t 02:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
