Talk:WTEL (AM)

Amgine
You are kidding me right?

-Advertising venue? Thats just standard information. Not a single person affiliated with those businesses added their information. Advertising???

-Link farm? 5 links dude. FIVE. All of them are associated with the station. Again, count them, FIVE. If it was like 7-15 or something, yeah maybe you can claim linkfarm, but jeez. FIVE...

-What so insignificant about the news you removed? You can't find these bits of information anywhere else, unless you search the dregs of google. There is nothing wrong about hosting that sort of information.

-Schedule...again, nothing wrong. Go talk to Boothy...he is the one who fixed that up to the pre-removal design.

-NPOV? Find me specifically where it isn't NPOV. The broadcast locations are taken directly from the website. The hosts, their history, and relavant news come from the Philadelphia Inquirer or other news sources.

http://www.610wip.com/startinglineup/Prgm12-26-05.pdf

Read the UpDate schedule at the bottom of the PDF. Check out Thursday, 7:00p-3:00a.

Who is MF?

Heres what I do know: JA = Joe Altomonte RC = Rob Charry JG = Jan Gorum RH = Rhea Hughes SS = Sue Schilling BS = Brian Startare ST = Steve Trevelise

Then check out the Sunday and Saturday UpDate schedule at the bottom of this schedule: http://www.610wip.com/startinglineup/Prgm10-24-05.pdf

Who is CD?

Article rewrite
Seriously this article need s a massive overhaul. It looks more like a fan site then an Encyclopedia article, with parts of similar information spread out in the page. Their is also a lot of trivial information that adds no or low value information. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.


 * Personalties: needs to be renamed schedule, interns need to go, they change to regularly to be of value, as well as producers, and fill in host. The section should stick to the regular schedule making notes of shows that have occasional or "off-day" broadcasts. Scores at the top and the bottom of the hour, again, to much "subject to scheduling", these schedules are rarely constant, and are of no real value. Frequent call-in guests need to be made it's own section.


 * Frequent broadcast locations and Special broadcast locations: combine the two sections, a list is not helpful unless you explain what it means, people who do not listen to WIP or know noting of US sports radio. The list should only stick to the ones that the broadcast from on a regular basis.


 * Station News: need to be de-listed and integrated into station history.


 * What the station is notorious for...: moved to station history


 * Miscellaneous information: information that should be placed into other station or removed, as well as sourced.

--Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Dude, dont be such a stickler. The article is fine as it is. No one has had any problems with the article to date...well except you. Just look at the history...no one seems to have any major problems.

If you were getting paid for your work here, or if you were getting compensated for doing work or getting compensation from this page, yes then you can take issue. But you are just another general user. If the information is factual, everyone has no problem with it, and its written well (all of which this article seems to follow) then what is the problem? OH NO...its disorganized! OH NO...the sections are mislabeled! OH NO...there is too much information! Dude, just quit being such a stickler. Its a free encyclopedia which everyone in the world is able to contribute to, its not britannica. Besides, where the hell else are you going to find such specific information about the station? Answer: no where. So why delete it? Because it doesnt follow regulations? Oh no! If someone can make use of this information (as it would seem they have) then why remove it? If the wikipedia admins have not taken issue with it, then I dont see why you, just another general user, should.

Who cares about the interns. If they change, then the article will be updated. Very simple. You would be surprised at how long the interns have been working for the station...as well as the hosts...as well as the fill-ins. Frequent Broadcast Locations are locations which they broadcast from on a weekly basis, or every other week, or something on that level. Special Broadcast Locations are locations which happen like once a year (Philadelphia Flower Show is once a year, auto show is once a year, flyers carnival is once a year, etc.).

I do agree with you with the Scores at the top and bottom of the hour since it is mostly variable.

I disagree on the station news. History is like...the station was created. The station changed to sports. Blah blah. I think those tidbits can be removed, but the rest should be left in tact as it is NEWS. Some guy getting fired is news worthy, not history worthy IMO.

I would rather you do a complete overhaul yourself and put it in the discussion or something for critique instead of making all these claims asking someone else to do them. The majority of the people in that history of edits to the article are people who make minor changes. Im sure you are more the type to be doing complete overhauls.

On a side: dont you have anything better to do than searching for articles you feel are improper?


 * You do not WP:OWN this article, as stated below If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.. And dont remove the tage from the article, becuas every time you do i will just replace it. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Im not saying I OWN it. I dont think the tag should be there at all. If YOU want a rewrite then DO THE REWRITE. Dont expect to get someone else to do YOUR work for YOU. You arent going to find anyone besides yourself to edit this article because no one else has a problem with the article.

I dont think it should be there and I will remove it until you can find someone who agrees with you.

I have had a person like yourself have a problem with another page I edited. He did not put that tag on the page at all. HE ACTUALLY TOOK THE TIME TO EDIT THE PAGE AS HE SAW FIT, unlike yourself...I would suggest you follow suit. Instead of wasting your time posting discussion here and editing the article for that tag, I think you should use your time editing the page as you think it should be edited.


 * You do not WP:OWN this article, as stated below If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.. And dont remove the tage from the article, becuas every time you do i will just replace it. Also removing the tag as you have, can be considered Vandalism. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Quit being a dick. WP:DICK. As I said, find me someone else who thinks the article needs a rewrite or quit placing that tag there. I never said I own it. You can make this case if you were actually EDITING THE ARTICLE. You havent edited a SINGLE word except for this tag. If you had edited part of the article and I had continuously reverted the edit then yes you can make this WP:OWN case. Otherwise, you have no basis for making this claim, you havent even edited the article yet. Again, please do the edits yourself and not recommend others do the work you want done. Continuously placing that tag on a perfectly good article can be considered Vandalism. I have read your arbitration case and you are treading thin ice here pal. You arent contributing anything to this article. Call me when you actually edit the content on this page.


 * You do not WP:OWN this article, as stated below If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.. And dont remove the tage from the article, becuas every time you do i will just replace it. Also removing the tag as you have, can be considered Vandalism. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Quit being a dick. WP:DICK. As I said, find me someone else who thinks the article needs a rewrite or quit placing that tag there. I never said I own it. You can make this case if you were actually EDITING THE ARTICLE. You havent edited a SINGLE word except for this tag. If you had edited part of the article and I had continuously reverted the edit then yes you can make this WP:OWN case. Otherwise, you have no basis for making this claim, you havent even edited the article yet. Again, please do the edits yourself and not recommend others do the work you want done. Continuously placing that tag on a perfectly good article can be considered Vandalism. I have read your arbitration case and you are treading thin ice here pal. You arent contributing anything to this article. Call me when you actually edit the content on this page.

I never said I owned the article. And you dont own it either. Either make some edits yourself, as I have seen in the past you have made edits, or quit placing the tag. There is NOTHING stopping you from making edits. If you make an edit I will look at it and critique it. Putting that tag is worthless. If you are willing to spend this much time just watching for that stupid tag then you definitely have the time to put the effort into editing this article. Its like that stub tag...the article isnt a stub so you remove the stub tag. The article is fine as is, unless you feel the need to EDIT IT. So it is pointless to put the tag.

If no one is going to take the time to edit the article then what is the point of putting the tag. If YOU FEEL THE NEED TO EDIT IT then YOU SHOULD. NOTHING is STOPPING YOU.

My opinion on this edit war
Just thought I'd give my two cents here: Now you have a disinterested third-party opinion. Hope it helps. --Hyperbole 08:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just about every edit Boothy443 initially suggested should probably be made. The article is not completely encyclopedic; it smacks of fancruft or even adcruft.
 * Since Boothy443 spelled out what the edits should be, it is utterly perplexing that he hasn't just gone ahead and made them.
 * Tagging the article "cleanup-rewrite" seems far too strong to me - it doesn't need a complete rewrite. Tagging it "cleanup" seems more appropriate.  Actually cleaning it up seems more appropriate still.
 * Boothy443 and Cableguytk are both roughly equally guilty of being uncivil to each other. Guys, this is a truly lame edit war.  Instead of wrestling over a tag, why not try improving the article?

I have made the edits that Boothy originally wanted, stuff that is really not that hard to do. It seems, based on his arbitration case and what has been going on here, that boothy likes to go around causing controversy. In the future, since you know so much about Wikipedia, boothy, if you want something done you do it yourself. You have the editing powers to do so. It is a better idea to do the edits yourself and have others critique them rather than ask other people do them for you then criticize them later for doing it wrong. Right now I dont have the time, but I will try to figure out a better way of organizing the schedule/hosts/personalities, since boothy will probably have no part in it. Naming the whole section "Personalities" or "Schedule" sounds wrong.

-CableguyTK...Thanks Hyperbole


 * Well i did at first put a clean up tag on the article, but Cableguytk removed that tag. I put the tag up so that if their are any users that watch this page take not of thr tage they might want to chime in on the ideas that i proposed or maybe put up some alternative ideas as well. I dont see the differenc in putting such things as arewrite tag up and a merge tag, as the funbdemental idea behind both is that their a major change beeing requested for the page, so i guess beased upon this idea i should just merger the next article i see that could me merged, with out trying to put forth an opionion or try to see if other might have an opinion on the idea. If the idea is to just do it right away, then all of the cean up tags chould be just done away with then. Speaking of tags right after you posted your responce, the Owner of this article, decided that he would just remove that tag again. I say owner, as that any tag that has been placed as been so far removed as it has not met with the owner of this page wishes. Also insted of trying to discuss this isssue the owner of this page basically launches into a tirade, in which he insults me for not editing the page right away, i can only assum that is so he can revert it if it does not meet with the usesrs appaorval of cruftynes being that he owns the artile. I should just revert this article back to september to drop all of the cruft out and then it will be a completet rewrite. And if you dont have the time to do it cable crufty, then why do you care if the tag is their or not. So after i post this i will just retag theis article, as it is appaorpate to have the tag on the article, and as long as cable cruft contines to own this page and remove the tag, then i will just readd the taguntill either myself or someone else cleans it up, lame edit war or not. And crfut i have been editing this page loneer then you have been, and it;s only that i have other projects on her that other users and myslef deal with that your crunftness has been allowed to stand, some of use edit more then two articles for the most part. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 08:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There have been like 3 days between the time your first tag appeared and now. Only after a 3rd party intervened did you make an edit. Congrats. Your intent here is to start a controversy. If you feel the need to see a changed article, nothing is stopping you from making the edits. I commend you on your edit of the schedule. Had you done something like this...oh, say, 3 days ago we wouldn't have this argument.


 * And yet their was still no need for you to remove the tags, and start an edit war just so you can assert your ownership of this article. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't asserting anything. You were being a dope and just placing the tag and contributing nothing. Do you think that placing a stub tag on an article makes it more likely that someone will add to it? Instead of just placing a tag and walking away, make some edits you feel are necessary and other people will feel inclined to go on from there. A tag does nothing. Have I changed your edits to the article? No. Get a clue.


 * Oh i am sorry, you must have not noticed the reson why i thought i should be redone above. If you think you page is so good why dot you put it up for Peer Review, you know what how about i do it for you. I amend being that you own this page, i would guess that you want it a featured page. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest...WIP can definitely use some more traffic. Again I dont own the article. I never unwelcomed edits to the article from you or anyone. Considering the lack of traffic I am the only one here discussing the article giving you the misconception that I actually "own" the article.


 * Oh i am sorry you just dont welcome opinions. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That is what the DISCUSSION page is for. You bring up the idea of the tag, you discuss it, and if the concensus believes it should be there, then its placed. If you feel something in the ARTICLE needs to be changed, you change it and people will review it.

Fair use rationale for Image:610 wip.jpg
Image:610 wip.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)