User:Rollosmokes/Archive 4

No personal attacks
Hi Rollosmokes,

Congratulations on enrolling in a broadcasting school. wikipedia needs experts in the field, and I hope you will continue to bestow Wikipedia with your expert insider knowledge on all things broadcast-related.

However, I would ask that you refrain from making personal attacks. Your recent talk page comment, above, "proved himself to be arrogant and pompous, someone not worthy to be an administrator", is an example of a personal attack, and you've made the statement in more than one place. While I can identify with your frustrations, we all get upset at times, but personal attacks never strengthen a person's case, and are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Please refactor your talk page; an essay like the one above really doesn't belong on a user's talk page, anyway. Feel free to contact me at any time. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  02:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Nine words
Your insistence in adding the reference to WKBS' final broadcast being the first Kickoff Classic game is growing tiredsome.

(violins.wav)

As I mentioned in the article's talk page, this is trivial and insignificant to the article, and does not belong here.

To you, it is. You ain't the sheriff 'round these parts, mister.

The game (through the teams involved) is already mentioned within the quote of Vincent Barresi's sign-off address.

Sigh. This game has historical significance: it's the first Kickoff Classic, and the first college played in August. No, it's not earth-shattering, but it's worth nine words. Nine words, pal...that's what you're all up in arms about. Nine words.

You obviously are trying to prove a point, which can lead to trouble if you insist on re-adding this line.

Oh, so you're threatening me now? Gee, I'm scared. Not.

I've been reading your talk pages: you have a tendency to get all a-twitter over small potatoes. "Why, how dare that uneducated whelp edit my work!" Get. Over. Yourself.

I have removed this line, and will continue to do so if you keep adding it.

Whatever. You, sir, are a numbskull. RMc 00:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet more on the nine words
''For tha absolute last time, stop adding this TRIVIAL reference. It has no place in this article, and I am tired of deleting it. And, just how am I being uncivil by asking you nicely to stop? Rollosmokes 16:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)''

You're being uncivil by calling it "trivial" (perhaps it is, but so is 80% of the article) and by threatening me and insulting me left and right. Why is this so important to you? Is your manhood threatened or something? Chill. RMc 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree the reference is trivial, and really doesn't need to be mentioned in the article. I have removed it, as I believe there is already a lot of trivial information cluttering up many of the TV station articles. However, at the same time, it's not really worth an edit war over a couple of words, right? Deep breaths. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  01:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm filing a report on WP:PAIN. The examples this user is saying are "personal attacks" against him clearly are not personal attacks. As far as I can tell, you've commented on the contributions, not the contributor. Firsfron of Ronchester  18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Rollosmokes,
 * As a result of the WP:PAIN listing, user:RMc has been blocked for 24 hours by user:Eagle_101 for 24 hours, for making personal attacks. Thanks for trying to remain civil and refraining from personal attacks during this affair. I appreciate your clean-up of this article, as I feel many of our TV station articles contain useless bits of trivia that don't truly help the encyclopedia. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  02:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet more
Firsfron is an administrator, and he agreed with me that those "nine words" you are hellbent on keeping in this article are TRIVIAL.

Look, just because one of your buddies is an admin doesn't make him, or you, right.

Yet you re-added them, which led to another user, Mattderojas, deleting them with the promise of repeating the task if they resurface again.

Somebody's awfully bored, yes?

Take a hint.

Here's a hint you should take: YOU DON'T OWN THE WKBS-TV PAGE. Other people have the right to edit things. Getting all worked up because someone dared to add nine words to your magnum opus sets a rather bad precedent, don't you think?

Grow up. You're acting like some pathetic broadcasting wannabe ("Look, everybody, I've been accepted to Broadcasting School!"). Pfft. I've been in the business for twenty-four years, and I can guarantee someone with your attitude wouldn't last for five minutes.

I don't even care about this stupid page anymore. But it's obvious you sorely need to be taught lessons on humility, maturity and fairness. I'd rather it not be me that needs to teach you these things, but so be it. RMc 16:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The last word on the nine words
Let me see if I have this straight. 1) I add nine words to the WKBS-TV page; 2) Rollosmokes has a hairy conniption fit, insulting me in the process (a common reaction for this guy when someone dares edit "his" pages)); 3) I respond in kind, and 4) I get banned for "personal attacks"!

Boy, that's rich. Are you guys all on the same bowling team or something?

This has gone well beyong the WKBS-TV page; there's principle involved here, which I why I keep pursuing it.

I'm going to edit WKBS-TV one last time. The admins have a choice to make:

1) Leave it alone, or 2) Revert it yet again, which sends the message that if a user jumps up and down and waves his arms (and has the right friends), he can get his way.

Your choice, fellas. RMc 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

RMc
I'm wondering if his continual re-addition of trivial information to the WKBS-TV article is grounds for him joining that CoolKat in the "Banned from editing this article" category. He's been given so much leeway as far as chances go. But that's just my opinion. John 14:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Relax, ace. I'm all done with this page. You and your pals have proven that throwing temper tantrums (and having the right friends) beats out logic and democracy. Have a page you've written that some whelp has dared to trod upon? Do what Rollosmokes did! Gee, uh, thanks. RMc 15:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"removed entire section (reads like an advertisement; needs to be rewritten"
Why are you so stingent about sections that read like advertisements? It does NOT read like an advertisement, what DOESN'T read like an advertisement under your definition? ViperSnake151 16:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

WWF Superstars of Wrestling
You did mess up links. After a quick glance: The Hart Foundation -> Hart Foundation The Honky Tonk Man -> Honky Tonk Man Miss Elizabeth -> Elizabeth Hulette

And I know there's more. Not to mention you needlessly unlinked things in later sections.

Feel free to clean up the grammar, but don't do it at the expense of working links. I'm reverting it again.«»bd(talk stalk) 00:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm trying not to be a jerk about this. Hart Foundation and The Hart Foundation are not the same link, even though they end at the same place. They end there because Hart Foundation redirects to the proper article, with "The" in the title. Just because clicking it gets you there eventually doesn't make it the correct link. You're changing links that bypass redirects to redirects, which is bad. I'm reverting it again to fix them all.

I get what you're trying to do with the grammar, but doing it at the expense of correct links isn't the way to go. If you want to uncapitalize "the" do it with pipes, not just deleting the word from the link.«»bd(talk stalk) 04:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm being uncivil by trying to keep the links. I went through and changed all the "The" to "the" for everything that's not the first word of someones/somethings name and kept all the links correct. There's no need for "then-" because obviously they were the "then-" wife/commentator/whatever. And there's no need for real names simply because WP:PW has decided against it.«»bd(talk stalk) 06:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Get off it. The first line was sarcasm. If I was trying to "own" the article I wouldn't have changed it.«»bd(talk stalk) 06:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

FSN New York
Hi Rollosmokes, a page was created for FSN New York. I'd love you see your input on it, particularly any history as Sportschannel New York, if you have any insight. Milchama 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes
I agree, as I have had problems with David Levy as well. Who should we go to? aido2002 19:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your "problems" have stemmed from your refusal to follow Wikipedia policies/guidelines. &mdash;David Levy 21:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[copied from User talk:Aido2002]:

I saw you had tried re-introducing numerals written as words into this article. When I re-wrote this and others, I substituted most single-digits with their word forms, and it wasn't a problem until David Levy decided to change them a month or so ago. While he has a leg to stand on as per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, this is not correct from a writing standpoint, as other writer's style guides (such as the Chicago Manual of Style) suggest the same thing we agree on. However, David Levy has drank the Wikipedia Kool-Aid much too much to listen to any suggestions. In short, I agree that single-digit numbers should be written as words in most cases. But we'll have a better time appealing to someone higher than David Levy, with whom I've had problems in the past and dislike immensely. Rollosmokes 07:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Over and over again, you ignore the ample evidence of the fact that this is a clear-cut exception to the rule. I explained the distinction between a formal FCC designation and a mere word used in prose.  You stated that "we should practice the same stylistic protocol as printed encyclopedias," so I quoted several excerpts from the Encyclopædia Britannica (arguably the world's most prestigious printed encyclopedia) in which single-digit channel numbers are referenced in numerical form.  You quoted an excerpt from the Penguin Handbook containing an explanation that "most styles do not write out words in ... an address" and prescribing that we "use numerals instead," but you refused to explain why we should spell out postal addresses (such as "Nine Broadcast Plaza") and channel addresses (such as "channel nine").
 * Rather than addressing any of this, you focused on uncivil personal attacks (which you've resumed above).
 * Consensus on Wikipedia is clear, as evidenced by the format used throughout the site (which, to borrow your logic, "wasn't a problem" until you decided to change it). No Kool-Aid is involved, however, as this is the common style used in formal writing.  Please stop attempting to impose your idea of correctness on the community.
 * Incidentally, given the fact that you made such a fuss regarding my age (mistakenly assuming that I was much younger than I am), I'll point out that Aido2002 (the individual with whom you agree) is 14 years old. Of course, some of our best editors have been that age and even younger.  &mdash;David Levy 21:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

WPIX
Why shouldn't we provide examples of popular programming such as Star Trek and Disney Afternoon that helped give the station the highest ratings of the NYC independents? If there were other major syndicated franchises that WPIX held the rights to, which were also instrumental in increasing its viewership, I would be happy to add them as well. The paragraph talks about a major push to revitalize the station, and steps achieved along the way are not trivial. Wl219 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Philadelphia television station articles
I noticed your recent cleanup at KYW-TV, where someone changed that station's affiliation from CBS to PBS. Well, that same user, Jamesinc24, has been similarly vandalising other Philly station articles: WPHL-TV (from MNTV to PBS); WCAU-TV (from NBC to Nick Jr.); WTXF-TV (from Fox to Noggin); and WPSG (from CW to Disney Channel, with call letters reverted to WGBS). He also edited Template:Philly TV to reflect his "changes".

I have left a message on his talk page warning him about making such changes in the future. Rollosmokes 15:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rollo. I didn't catch the others, as they are not on my watch list. Since this user has been sticking obvious hoaxes in articles (A Nick Jr. "affiliate"? C'mon!), and since you've warned him, if he does it again, the account should be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. I'll try to keep an eye on this situation, but if you see something suspicious, please let me know. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  16:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverts
The reverts you did to WUSA-TV and Gannett are part of an ongoing problem. It is coming from various IP addresses all from Verizon out of Boston. I have reverted as many as I can find (wasn't online to correct those or I would have). I have put the IPs on WP:AIV to no avail. Am not sure what can be done. - SVRTVDude 21:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sunbelt.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sunbelt.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, Rollo, for your fixes here to the DuMont article. Much appreciated. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  03:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WWOR-TV
I added information that I knew to the WWOR-TV page. Danski14 took some info out (he couldn't confirm it) and I added want I could confirm. No harm done:) - SVRTVDude 23:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

KTLA-TV's pictures
I'm just curious as to why you're removing KTLA's icons from the past... they're the legitimate logos from the station, and they are fair-use as they are low-resolution, and do not infringe upon any copyrights, as i've listed the sources for both.  RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk'''