User:Rollosmokes/Archive 6

KYW - HD news
What's wrong with some limited technical details for KYW's HD news operations? I did not post technical details that are over everyone's head. Although the number of HD newscasts are growing, I think that few have such an advanced HD operation as KYW and even fewer seem to have publicized the details of their news operation for their viewers(such as showing a tour on the 11:00 news, explaining how the control rooms work, showing the new editting system that is Blu-Ray disc based, even inviting viewers to stop by their new building for a tour!). There is more detail about KYW's graphics and station bugs, than about their cutting edge technical operations... shouldn't it be the other way around? Many of the stations commercials state "You are watching CBS 3, live in HD" The station really is proud of their new HD capabilities and they are an important part of the station's history.

No I don't work for KYW, just someone who enjoys, appreciates, and can understand the technical details of high-definition television.

Thanks- AK3883 ak3883 10:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is simple -- too much detail, too much PR. There is no need to waste space praising this advancement when a large majority of viewers don't even have a digital television set yet (including myself, and I don't plan on purchasing one until I absolutely have to), or just plain don't care.  This kind of promotional hype should remain on KYW-TV's website, and not on the KYW-TV entry here at Wikipedia.  Rollosmokes 05:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the problem is the general public and people like you, who fear change and are afraid of new technology. KYW's website won't tell detail like this, that's why it should be published here. If ppl don't care then they don't read it or say "whatever". It's that simple. You know how much other garbage there is out there on this site? Here's some real, cool facts on new technology, and people like you are stuck in the 20th century. There is no harm whatsoever in posting information like this.-AK3883


 * You missed the point. This has absolutely nothing to do with a resistance to change.  The article already mentions that KYW-TV is broadcasting in high-definition.  Any further details are trivial, redundant, and unnecessary.  It reeks of over-promotion and has no bearing on the overall history of the station, which is the main focus of the article.  For the last time, the details do not belong there.  Rollosmokes 05:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not know that words on Wikipedia could "reek". How can you smell over-promotion from those words? Seriously, I tried to smell my monitor but couldn't smell anything! Have fun policing the page of TV markets you do not reside in, and keeping "porno" vandelism off TV station wiki entries. I expected more from someone like you who appears to have quite a history in broadcasting, I'm terribly impressed by your credentials. I'm watching HD news on KYW right now, it looks great. Have fun watching TV in plain old SD since you will never buy a digital TV until you are forced to.-AK3883


 * Be careful when responding to others comments. Your latest response is tettering on incivility.  Rollosmokes 04:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

End of this discussion. Next topic please. Rollosmokes 04:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:RMc
I see you had some problems with this guy in the past.

I'm having problems with him now. He completely flew off the handle when I tried to make a helpful suggestion to him about how he might avert a budding revert war he was in with someone else and responded to WP:NPA responses with more personal attacks. Now he has been attempting to remove my discussions from his talk page.

Looking over your history, he got blocked for his actions with you. I think, given that, if I were an admin seeing this going on between I'd block him again, but so far no one seems to have noticed. Perhaps you know who might be interested in looking at this guy again? Daniel Case 17:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

WWJ (AM)
Please point out to me the Wikipedia policy that explains your reversion noted here diff JPG-GR 00:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WNBC Logos
Once again, you are not in charge of this article, and I would appreciate it if you discontinue your Personal Attacks. I decided to give up the fight over having two logos because they have since discontinued use of the alternate logo, but this is something that I will not budge on. aido2002 19:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please show me where I have personally attacked you. All I did was comment on the image -- in my opinion, it is too large at 200 pixels.  Unfortunately for you, you can't seem to take this suggestion and look at it reasonably.


 * You claim I'm in charge of this article? Look in the cyber-mirror, sonny boy: Your response all but convicts you of WP:OWN.  If necessary, I will seek outside help from an admin to solve this problem.  I was on your side about the single-digit thing, but we disagree on this.  Sorry, I won't be budging here either.  Rollosmokes 03:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

WNBC-TV logo picture
It's been a while, but I request your help once again.

With all the garbage that's been going on regarding fair-use images in television station articles, the last thing we need is a fight over the size of a picture in the infobox. But that is what may happen with Image:NBC 4.png. Aido2002 uploaded the image, and placed it within the infobox at WNBC-TV at 200 pixels. I reduced it to 150 pixels, which is smaller but still large enough to be seen. Aido2002 enlarged it back. This was around the same time he was fighting to keep two identical WNBC logos (the other being Image:WNBC alt logo.png) in the article, a battle he wisely gave up.

But recently, while doing a random cleanup of some mess left by one of BenH's sockpuppets, I noticed the image was back at 200 pixels. I made it small again, and left a message on Aido2002's talk page explaining (once again) my reasons why. He left me a response accusing me "Personal Attacks", and declaring that "this is something that I will not budge on"'.

Your intervention in this dispute is welcomed. Thanks in advance. Rollosmokes 04:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Rollo,
 * It is good to see you (so to speak). I certainly agree with you that no second logo on WNBC is needed. I don't understand your reasoning for why the logo can't be 200px wide. What's wrong with 200 pixels? The only reasoning you've provided on Aido2002's talk page is that it is "too large", and that because he doesn't see it that way, he isn't "look[ing] at it reasonably." Can you give me a guideline or policy here that might apply? I can't really think of anything that applies to this situation, and I really think an edit war over the size of a logo in an infobox is hardly worth the time or effort. I'm also worried about the tone you set, ie, "Look in the cyber-mirror, sonny boy", etc. That's not very civil. Hey, Rollo: step back for a second. It's just the size of a logo. And the difference in size isn't that great.
 * I've adopted a very "zen" attitude on Wikipedia, and I reccommend you do, too: unless it's vandalism, or something that abolutely should be removed (POV edits, unsourced trivia, utter nonsense, etc), who cares if the logo is enlarged slightly? This article doesn't even have one in-line citation. Its only source is a single external link. I think this high-profile article on a very important TV station has much bigger problems than how large the logo should be, and I'm sure you agree. I think you're coming on too strong here, about something that doesn't seem quite that important, especially considering the lack of sourcing for any part of this article.
 * If, however, you want a third opinion, start a discussion on the article's talk page. I'll gladly mediate if the dispute gets ugly. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

KUTP logo
Hi Rollo. Thanks for uploading the new KUTP logo - I like it a lot better. Please don't forget to add fair use rationales to images you add. The image police are really cracking down on non-free images in general, and logos in particular. I went ahead and added a rationale to this one, so it's OK now. Thanks again. dhett (talk • contribs) 05:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the good words, and I have copied the free-use rationale template to each image. Rollosmokes 06:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Pibb and Metromedia
Hi Rollo,

Thanks for your note on my page. It seems clear the guy is odd, and even after months of editing still doesn't understand basic Wikipedia policy. He wasn't banned; he was blocked. He was blocked for making repeated personal attacks, and these can clearly be seen in his contributions list. So I'm not even sure what his complaint is. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester  15:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

WNBC Newscasts Times
I don't think that section falls under WP:NOT, because (assuming you think it is a TV guide) it does not give a full guide of what they broadcast, just the times of newscasts, which, in my opinion, are as acceptable as any other detail. It is factual information. However, if it included things like "11:35, the Tonight Show" in it, I would agree with you, that would be a guide of info that cannot be justified. aido2002 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know...
Look, don't take this the wrong way, but myself (and apparently others) think that you, at times, do kind of act like you can decide what happens (I believe "king of Wikipedia" is how someone put it.) I don't mean this as a personal attack, but merely to bring it to your attention, just so that you know how you occasionally seem to fellow Wikipedians. I'm sure you didn't mean to seem like that, you don't seem to me to be someone that would do it intentionally, but I just wanted to alert you. aido2002 19:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A long way of saying that I'm arrogant. Tell me something else I don't already know.  Rollosmokes 06:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I was trying to put it politely. :) aido2002 22:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh?
OK, I am not understanding why you have removed some WikiLinks on the WBAL-TV page and reverted my changes made to add those WikiLinks and a couple others. If you could explain, it would be helpful. - NeutralHomer  T:C 15:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Wikilinks I removed from the Former Personalities section (for WMAR, WJZ, and WBAL radio) were redundant, as they already appeared in other sections of the article. There's no need for them to appear more than once, and if you read the whole article, you'll see what I mean.  Rollosmokes 15:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

WPIX Logo
I have replaced the WPIX logo on the WPIX page. The logo I obtained the logo from a media kit which is used on air and is more accurate to the viewers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liradio (talk • contribs)


 * How is this the official logo when it isn't on the website? And, furthermore, the OFFICIAL CW 11 logo is WHITE, not GREEN.  For these reasons, I asked you not to change it back, and as I will now seek admin help as I promised.  Rollosmokes 15:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Help at WPIX, ¿por favor?
The image Wpixcw11-1.jpg, from the WPIX article (which, BTW has both the proper tag and use rationale), was replaced by Liradio to a image (Image:Wpix2007.png) that was incorrect from the one WPIX uses on its website and on its air. He/she claims that it is the official WPIX logo, but the station has never used a green color ever in its version of CW 11. This change was made initially with no explanation by Liradio, and when I tried reverting back, explaining my reasons for doing so, Liradio disregarded and re-reverted back again. The previous version of the image is now back on the page, put I feel that Liradio will change it back again, so I'm requesting...you guessed it...assistance? Rollosmokes 16:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a "CW 11"-style logo on this page, but it's black, not green. There are some white ones as well, but I haven't come across a green "CW 11" style logo. I'm not seeing a media press kit oon their site at all. I'm leaving a note on the user's talk page for further clarification. Firsfron of Ronchester  17:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether it's black or green, WPIX still uses only white. These other logos are just alternates, not the official one.  And, unless I'm wrong, we're trying to keep everything as accurate as possible, aren't we?  Rollosmokes 18:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just waiting to hear back from user:Liradio. I don't see any sign of a media kit on the site, and the logo used prominently on their site is your version. I can't tell if that's the "official" version, but it certainly seems to be the one they use the most (and on their front page). Firsfron of Ronchester  18:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, hello? On the description for the logo for The CW on the main page, "Note that while the logo usually appears white on green, these colors have been reversed here, so as to not appear out of place on light backgrounds." - doesn't that apply everywhere else too? ViperSnake151 20:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

WBAL-TV
I think the Action News stuff was fine, if it can be sourced. We you please discuss it more fully on the talk:WBAL-TV page? --Knulclunk 21:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC) When I came across the info on Kershaw, I thought it would be important for the history of WBAL, especially since there is no human history on that page, just affliation changes and news casts info. Kershaw gives a bit of flavor to the article. The same is true with the WMAR article, the strike is part of their history. Discuss? Marylandstater 22:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I did a complete revert because the additional sub-headings were unnecessary. If a section is comprised of just one or two paragraphs, most of the time there is no need to create separate sections.  To me, that was the case both here, and at WMAR-TV as well.  Also, both of those articles are lacking enough text to warrant additional sub-sectioning.


 * I'll look over the previous versions again, and see if the additional stuff can be re-incorporated into the text. Rollosmokes 00:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

After looking over it, it is my opinion that the info isn't notable enough to re-add into the article. Other than what we know about his relationship with Jessica Savitch (despite how one may feel he was depicted in that Lifetime movie), Ron Kershaw wasn't well-known enough to warrant mentioning him here; I doubt there should be an article about him on Wikipedia as well. To say he was a "genius" can be stretching things, as he certainly didn't leave a mark on television journalism from behind the scenes as, say, Al Primo or even Joel Cheatwood. Also, there was a bit of redundancy in one line ("Baltimore's Action News briefly replaced Channel 13 as the number one news station in Baltimore during the mid-seventies"). For these reasons, the WBAL-TV article should remain as it is for now. Rollosmokes 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WMAR-TV strike
According to the page you directed me to: "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." At the time of the strike, it received coverage from WBAL and WJZ tv news, the Baltimore Sun and WBAL radio, as well as on its own news show which I included in the link. It happened 25 years ago, does that make it less notable? The older people here in Baltimore still remember, why should it not be included as part of the station's news history; it happened. And strikes at TV stations or newspapers are not that common for one not to take note of it.Marylandstater 20:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

''Please stop adding the trivial information about the strike. You claim in your edit summaries that it is important to Maryland history, but your insistence in having it in the article can constitute that you are trying to prove a point, which is a Wikipedia no-no. Rollosmokes 18:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)''

I offered my explanations as to why I think the addition is important to the article, here they are again: a. its as much part of the stations history as the change in network affliations, changes in ownership or programming changes; b. its is verifiable even though it occurred 25 years ago; c. its was significant enough for it to be covered by the three Baltimore tv stations, the Baltimore Sun and the (now defunct) Baltimore News American; d. the fact that there was a strike may give researchers information on why the stations news ratings have stayed so low. (poor news cast ratings are mentioned in the article) e. and its just a paragraph. Its not like we are running out of room.

You have given no concrete reason why it should not be included except for the fact in your opinion it is either trivial or unnecessary. I have offered my reasons for my opinion for the paragraphs' inclusion, what are your reasons for its exclusion?Marylandstater 20:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It has been nearly a week since I offered you the opportunity to explain why you continually delete my edits. Still, the best you can offer is that you think the addition about the strike is trivial with no concrete justification for the opinion. So, please stop deleting my edits.Marylandstater 15:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/WCBS-TV News Team
I read your comment on the AfD, and I disagree with it. Please explain how you feel the page should remain when, as was mentioned, this info was originally in the main WCBS-TV article and should be restored there. As a separate article, its scope is limited to only those who care about who's doing or who's done news on channel 2 (a very small group) and not to the whole Wiki-comminity.

And, furthermore, please explain your comment "Any AfD that uses the word 'cruft', or any form thereof as an excuse for deletion ought to be retained for that reason alone." Can one take that to mean you are in favor of limited-scope fancruft staying on Wikipedia? Rollosmokes 20:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is rather large as is, and forking out news talent leaves two balanced articles. Articles may only be deleted because they violate or fail to meet Wikipedia policy. WP:CRUFT is merely an essay that has no validity as a justification for deletion, and not a single policy was mentioned in any way, shape or form to justify deletion. There are many things I don't care about. I don't care about Pokemon, or Star Wars planets, or a huge variety of articles. They're "cruft" to me, but that's irrelevant; the articles stand or fall by Wikipedia policy, not because I or other people aren't interested in the subjects. To pick a more specific example, I live in the New York City area and I have never watched WPXN-TV and I couldn't care less what frequency they broadcast on or who their news personalities are. By your definition, the article should be deleted because only people in the New York area who actually watch the channel could care less about the station. Yet you keep on updating teh article because it interests you. I stand by my vote. I encourage you to read through relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and use them to support any future AfDs. Alansohn 21:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ditto! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have, and I disagree with both of you completely. My opinion has nothing to do with personal feelings. And, no I have never updated, contributed to, or had anything to do with creating these articles. The information is better served in the main station articles, and some of the names in the "Former Personalities" sections should be pared down to leave a list of who are truly "notable". To create a separate article, which only serves a small group of users, is a waste of space.

BTW, cruft does/should not constitute articles on whole subjects that one has no interest in, like (as Alansohn says) Pokemon, Star Wars, or WPXN-TV. And, since the first two have a larger pop-culture following, they can't be looked at the same way as a listing of past-and-present local television station anchors -- that is a pretty obscure subject, no? Rollosmokes 21:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Stop-Please Stop
Why would I not add information it says right in the deletion policy to try and get the page up to standards. I still don't get why you dont want the pregame show there but you leave in Yankees Batting Practice Today. NYYankee2684 00:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep bringing that up? I didn't create that article, but if it is simply fancruft, like your articles, then it needs to go also.  Rollosmokes 04:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: NYYankee2684 blanked the AfD page for Yankees Baseball on YES, and removed the AfD tag from Yankees Batting Practice Today. Both changes have been reverted by other users.  Just thought I'd let you know he's starting to hang himself.  Rollosmokes 04:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've just asked him not to do blank discussions or remove AFD tags. Assuming good faith, he just didn't know not to do that. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Group AfD nominations
When nominating multiple articles for deletion together, you can tag them with  so that all the tags will point to the same nomination page. Also, if you add new articles to a group nomination — or otherwise significantly change the nomination — after some discussion has already occurred, it's generally considered courteous to leave a note about the change below the comments made so far, in order to avoid presenting them in a possibly misleading context. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * When I was making both the group nomination and the addition later on, I was hoping to do it properly. Thanks for the tip.  Rollosmokes 05:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Schedules
Heyas, I tried to talk with JzG and AMIB and they refused to budge. I was asked to propose a rule change and was threatened by JzG with banning. My previous behavoiur under my previous username was brought up to ridicule me. I posted to some WP:TVS members, only to have those posts reverted by JzG as harrassment and again threatened. So, with no real course of action and threats and ridicule no matter what I do, I personally find that it is JzG and AMIB's fault. I am removing them, because they aren't, and since this is their idea (not mine), people should talk to them. I am not trying to be mean or start a fight with them. Hell, I was trying to be nice. But, after being threatened, ridiculed and reverted in trying to bring change, it seems that this is what they want and in the words of my Grandma, "it's their bed, they gotta sleep in it now".

But again, I am not trying to be mean. - NeutralHomer  T:C 21:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I get into a groove, get some rock music going and fly through them. I noticed I took out some anchor/reporter info on one or two stations...but wasn't really sure what to do there.  I have a feeling that will be the next thing to go on the ol' chopping block.  I will, though, be a little more careful and I apologize if I took any other information.  If I did, please let me know and I will go back and readd the information, just not the newscast part. -  NeutralHomer  T:C 03:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No harm done, just wanted to point that out to you. Rollosmokes 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I got through the Ks and up to WO**. Hated to have to do it, but it ain't worth the fight.  Time for sleep, I'll knock out the rest tomorrow. -  NeutralHomer  T:C 06:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I couldn't sleep...so guess what got finished. Yup, I knocked 'em all out.  If I missed any (I was using a WP:TVS page as a guide) please let me know.  Take Care... NeutralHomer  T:C 10:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I upset some people. I was also told by a certain admin to just "leave them all alone".  Sometimes you need a decoder ring to tell what some people are saying, ya know?  Anywho, please let me know if there is something I can do that ain't going to get me threatened, ridiculed, or screamed at.  Thanks... NeutralHomer  T:C 21:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WNBC Hellicopter
Look, you can't discuss an event like this while omitting the fact that their rival station not only captured the event, but won an Emmy. Don't remove the paragraph again, or, at the least, let it stay there for now, and request a discussion over the topic on the talk page. aido2002 22:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation at WNBC?
Aido2002 insists that this line remains in the WNBC article. From the subsection "Helicopter Crashes," describing the crash of a WNBC-TV news helicopter in 2004:


 * "WABC-TV's news helicopter was covering the same news story when they saw the WNBC helicopter clearly having trouble. They called for help and also got exclusive footage of the actual crash, for which they won an Emmy Award."

Mentioning that WABC-TV -- another rival station -- won an Emmy for covering the crash of a competing station's helicopter is not all that notable. And since WABC-TV, **NOT** WNBC-TV won the award, this info has no place in the WNBC article. Aido2002 doesn't see things that way, and he insists that it remain in the article. It's there now. Help, please? Rollosmokes 04:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do exactly what you did: leave a note about it, explaining why it shouldn't be in this article, but at the article's talk page. I know this article is watchlisted by a lot of folks, so it should be easy to gain a consensus. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WTVD
Can you add the Art Department section back to your article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.66.44 (talk • contribs)


 * No. As I wrote in the edit summary, the information is not notable.  Non-notable, trivial info should be kept off, as it only interests a small group of readers and not the entire Wikipedia community.  It should remain out of the article.   Rollosmokes 21:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on WNBC
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How could I be close to violating 3RR when I just deleted text, rather than reverting the entire article? Rollosmokes 02:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You've removed the material you don't want in the article, five times in the past 24 hours. Just be cool about it, man. It's likely the consensus will be to remove the material, but it doesn't have to be removed every few hours. Leave it alone. Edit a different article. Do not continue an edit war. Firsfron of Ronchester  02:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on WGN-TV
Please stop reposting inaccurate information on this article and stop threatening and accusing me of vandalism. IP user "163.192.21.43" is a shared IP address at Tribune Company and WGN-TV, and the information I corrected and posted is factual. If you wish to discuss, feel free. I do not wish to be a part of an edit war. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.192.21.43 (talk • contribs) 9 June 2007


 * Well, if you are who you say you are, people (including myself) will take you seriously if you got an official screenname and Wikipedia account. Rollosmokes 16:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: WGN-TV: There's this thing called a "talk page". It's a wonderful little edit war-solving device. I'd advise you use it. Morgan Wick 18:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see you've begun using it. Morgan Wick 18:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That said, everyone calls it "The WB" and "The CW", not "WB Television Network" and "CW Television Network", as is evident by a bajillion other articles, so those are the versions that should go in the infobox. Morgan Wick 18:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to your edit comment
In response to, "you have no authority to make pronouncements as such...the lines in question should stay off until its fate is resolved", I'd like to say that I am not making a pronouncement which I am unauthorized to make, I'm merely following set prescient. It is customary to undo a disputed removal until a consensus is reached, after this happens, changes can be made accordingly. Oh, and let me emphasize that it has to be a consensus--everyone must agree, not just the majority (not to insult your intelligence as if you don't know that, I'm sure you do, I'm just trying to make it clear that we are going to have to agree on something). aido2002 20:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

KMSP
I explained all my reasons for my edits to Fightingirish on the KMSP-TV talk page twice. However, he chooses to revert completely to his/her preferred version without explaining his reasons or using invalid reasons in his/her edit summaries. On my recent revision to Talk:KMSP-TV, I have taken each paragraph and sentence that needed maintenance and explained what should be changed -- something I shouldn't have to do. Rollosmokes 06:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't you have to explain your edits to someone who is specifically asking why their edits were reverted, Rollo? I'm getting a lot of complaints about Big Rollo, and what I'm seeing is that these edit wars which continually have your name on them are often over the smallest things: whether or not FOX is capitalized, whether the word reporter is wikilinked or not, whether something appears in paretheticals or between commas... Please understand that these sorts of disputes do not help the article in any way: none of the material in these articles has been sourced or referenced anywhere, and could be deleted by an overzealous admin. So whether or not the capitalization is standardized is my least concern at this point. WP:TVS has no Good articles or Featured articles. The other Wikiprojects are galvanizing to improve their content by sourcing their articles with reliable sources Meanwhile, WP:TVS is stuck in the stone age; it has yet to get even a single article up to Good status, but I'm continually seeing revert wars over the smallest non-issues. The next time you revert an editor, it may turn out that editor is working for the station; s/he may be very displeased s/he can't edit any content at Wikipedia without it being reverted. The last thing we need is bad publicity, and certainly not from a wikiproject which many are beginning to feel is more trouble than it's worth (no effort to source articles, no effort to bring the articles into compliance with Wikipedia policies, no effort to improve content other than to stage a hundred edit wars). Firsfron of Ronchester  07:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything you have said is right. I look at things both big and small, but to me the small things need to be taken care of first before the larger problems can be solved fully.  Sometimes I have found that eliminating little problems can make those large ones a bit easier to deal with.  But, that's just my way of doing things.  I don't expect everybody to share my view on this.  At the same time, I really hated to do what I did to KMSP-TV and break down each and every little thing that was wrong with Fightingirish's perferred version.  I tried to correct the problems and he/she kept reverting back.  I'm also having the same problem with WGN-TV currently, and it's a conflict with another editor who's come in and tried to claim ownership because they "say" they are a Tribune Company employee.  In both situations, relevant information and grammatical/stylistic fixes were needlessly removed.  This drives me crazy.


 * I also don't like edit wars, but they seem to happen when I'm involved. Perhaps I need to change my style, but I don't compromise that for anyone.  I have made an effort to explain my reasons for making changes, and current situations I'm having with the content of KMSP and WGN-TV are examples which I can site.  But if that effort can't be met half-way, then what's the point?  Rollosmokes 08:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You were the one who started the revert war on the KMSP page. I made what I felt to be fair and strong edits (while only scratching the surface on what needs to be done with the article). The thanks I got? A quick revert. I then went back and tried to incorporate what you wanted. Again, you reverted, so seeing no end to this and no way to work with you in a collaborative manner, I decided to fight fire with fire, reverting back from what you posted. You are not blameless in this. You reverted me for no good reason and without explanation (though I did get one after your second revert).


 * If you happen to get involved in edit wars and don't understand why, perhaps you should take a good, hard look at your edits/reverts. I rarely get into wars with other people, and in most cases, save for anonymous vandals, I have struck a compromise and cordial relationship. These things are not always started by other people. You are not a victim. Please don't act like one.--Fightingirish 14:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Evasion of Discussion on WNBC
Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Additionally, please do not attempt to bypass discussion of the removal of sections such as the helicopter crash paragraph, do not remove it until consensus is reached to do so. Thanks, aido2002 22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)|Additionally, please do not attempt to bypass discussion of the removal of sections such as the helicopter crash paragraph, do not remove it until consensus is reached to do so. Thanks, aido2002 22:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Aido2002, did you read the WNBC talk page? If you did, you would have seen not only my comments, but these from our friendly administrator, Firsfron:
 * "Local Emmys are a dime a dozen, anyway: hundreds or thousands are awarded every year. May be notable, or not, but the fact that they (WABC-TV) won an award for the coverage certainly doesn't belong on a rival station's article."
 * That pretty much ends the argument for me. It's not exactly an endorsement for the notability of the lines you insist on keeping in this article.  And, BTW, I wasn't evading any discussion, because I already discussed it (hence the reason for striking your comments).  I do have a life outside of Wikipedia, you know.  Rollosmokes 00:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are evading consensus, not discussion. We are supposed to compromise and come up with a solution. Just because we exchanged brief comments on the talk page does not mean you can go ahead as if there was no opposition to the change. Oh, and don't strike my comments, I still made them, weather you think it was right to or not. aido2002 03:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, do not strike comments. The strike through is generally used to indicate a retracted statement, and I have retracted nothing. aido2002 19:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not evaded any discussion. I have already made my opinions known on this topic both on this page and on the WNBC talk page. I will have no further comment on this. Next? Rollosmokes 20:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You have evaded discussion, and I would expect you to be able to act more maturely than striking my comments as if I have retracted them. aido2002 19:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)