Talk:2ARM

Citations still needed?
Or can we remove that box? Just wondering 121.44.60.184 (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC) And again - are there any more citations needed? Or does it now meet minimum standards? 121.44.31.17 (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The temporary nature of this station should mean that it is no longer referred to as 2ARM, because it is not fully licenced. TCBL is how the ACMA (www.acma.gov.au) refers to it... Is this a case where renaming is more valid.

Considering also the ACMA might not renew their licence, or licence a competing group to share the frequency, should this article be updated?

The Jack Arnold mention is a bit specific, especially for an encylopedic article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.201.72 (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

User:2arm, how to proceed
user 2ARM editing 2ARM entry seems, well, kinda dangerous. Thanks to Bidgee for policing this, and stop the wholesale editing. Now how is it best for us to proceed, so there is no conflict. Or appearence of POV violations? 150.101.201.72 (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, aside from the username violation, there was a clear conflict of interest in the user's edits to this article. It is currently being resolved, I believe. Concerning your question how to proceed, I think the first step to improving this article would be to find some reliable sources about 2ARM, and then add any relevant information we find in them, with citations. And if anyone want to add potentially controversial things (like promotional or critical statements about 2ARM), it's best to discuss it on the talk pages like we're doing here. -kotra (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, the brief problem with the website issue seems to have been sorted out, and spurred me on to actually turn it into a complete website BEFORE updating wikipedia... However, we still seem to have the 2ARM needing some cajoling. Bidgee gets full points for helping de-escalate this 203.45.4.244 (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the station is being told to hand down there licence and that the possibility of a competing group to share the frequency... yes the article should continue to be updated. To keep the article being updated shows that the station is still interested in allowing the public to understand whats going on with their local community station. Controversial comments seem to flow through community stations, However i do not agree that controversial issues regarding ANY community station should be hidden from the public. If there are problems with the running of a COMMUNITY station, then to be realistic, the COMMUNTIY deserves the right to know about it. Codecgame (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

TCBL
Are they STILL on TCBL? it has been over 12 months - what is the hold up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.206.205 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

They are still on TCBL until 31st January,2009. They have to already submitted an aplication for a renewal of the TCBL. However, as the 8 weeks deadline has passed, they will have to ask for a special favour from the ACMA - if this is forthcoming, they will be able to continue to broadcast. The major issue with this will arise is if another group launches an application for the licence. Such a group, made up of an ex-board memember is expeced to be launched from Uralla. However, no paperwork has yet been seen. Jacketed (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)