User:Rollosmokes/Archive 7

Codyfinke6
Hello,

We seem to have an issue with Codyfinke6 in that he keeps making unproductive/incorrect/down-right wrong edits to articles, this time on he Burger King products article. He has been blocked once and I am afraid that he or she needs to be blocked again, permanently if possible.

Please comment.

Jerem43 00:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WGN-TV
I've let myself cool off after the unnecessarily heated KMSP and WNBC battles, but here's another of those small things that just sticks in my craw: TV9 has apparently done all he/she can to claim ownership of the WGN-TV article, to the point of nitpicking over correct use of capitalization (whether the word The should be capitalized within a sentence). But my main problem here is TV9 continues to incorrectly change the Wikilinks for both The WB Television Network and The CW Television Network to The WB and The CW. I correctly fixed the links to avoid redirects, but every time I've done this, TV9 changes it back, using claims of improper grammar as his/her excuse. I have commented to TV9 on how the links should be written in the article, but he/she has ignored my advice.

I am tired of coming to you complaining about small things like this, but I have no other alternative. Rollosmokes 04:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Rollo!
 * Not a problem; ideally, we'd want to avoid redirects if possible, piping the link, like this: The WB, which ends up looking like The WB while linking to the main article, is one solution. I'll talk to the other editor, and see if we can't work out some kind of compromise. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  05:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Rollosmokes, you've been reverting to your PREFERRED VERSION of WGN-TV rather than acknowledge that factual and grammatical corrections were made previously. I have reverted the article back to its corrected version once again. Since June 8th, you've repeatedly proven that: 1) you are claiming ownership of the article as no version is acceptable to you but your own; and you've been using the article to prove a point. As I've previously stated, the word "The" is part of the name of "The WB" and "The CW".  This is confirmed by the networks as well as their respective Wikipedia articles (not just the title but the body of the articles).  Even administrator Morgan Wick instructed you to label "The WB" and "The CW" as such.  Instead, you continue to repeatedly edit them as "WB" and "CW".  As I've also stated, the word The can have a capital T within a sentence when it's the first word of a name or title .  You've previously stated that capitalization wasn't an issue for you but your repeated reverts prove otherwise.  I look forward to the administrator's response and hope that they also take a close look at your history on my discussion page. Please do not revert the article again, pending further review. TV9 09:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:WWOR NewJersey.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:WWOR NewJersey.jpg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

WWOR-TV logo
Your new PNG version of the logo looks fine. Do you see what a tremendous difference the lack of lossy re-compression makes?

PNG version|150px

Note the lack of "mosquito noise" (the compression artifacts around the text's edges) in the PNG on the right. —David Levy 14:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Independent Station
I am considering moving the article to "Independent station (North America)", to isolate the original main focus of the article, which was non-network affiliated stations in the U.S. and Canada.

Thank you. Soredewa 06:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits on WBAL/WJZ
I wasn't quite sure what to do with those edits, I wanted to revert them, but they looked like good edits. So I was kinda torn, hence why I didn't revert them myself. In case you are wondering, I keep an eye on Baltimore area TV (DC and Hagerstown, MD too). Take Care and Happy 4th.... NeutralHomer T:C 17:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. But what the editor claimed was "factual information" was all wrong.  Rollosmokes 17:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

TV
Sorry for the changes, you should have left me a note earlier, or I should have contacted you. I was just trying to get rid of the small text, and adjust the spacing, they weren't rendering properly on my screen. My column method lets you adjust the columns easier between any number of columns, and you don't have to guess at the midpoints. Try using it, you can use my HTML tags and just set the column numbers to two. Why are you so determined to have two columns and all the empty space? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can no longer support you reversals. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, perhaps they aren't rendering in IE, let me experiment and test the hypothesis. If they aren't I will move them back to your method. I am getting rid of the duplicate list, because there was no consensus to delete the lists as separate articles, and now I am correcting errors in two copies. Many of the blue links lead to spurious articles because of errors in disambiguation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:WB New Jersey
Template:WB New Jersey has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —  WC  Quidditch  &#9742;   &#9998;  23:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:UPN New Jersey
Template:UPN New Jersey has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —  WC  Quidditch  &#9742;   &#9998;  23:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

New York Yankees GA/R
New York Yankees has been nominated for a good article review. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are delisted. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WBOC-TV
Hello again. I am wondering what parts of the rewrite you thought contained "unnecessary" changes. Personally, I thought the current and former personality sections had too much "unnecessary" information. I can see how the administration section could be "unnecessary", but the first 12 listings are pertinent to the article. If you would like to see a modified version of a rewrite of mine, I am also working on WMDT. I would like to keep my WBOC rewrite with any suggestions you might have. Strafidlo 06:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * IMO, there was no reason why the article had to be re-written. Also, what was the purpose behind re-verting back to your version?  The main problems I have with your writing is not the content, but rather are style and structure.


 * For example:


 * Fox should not be in capital letters ( "FOX" ) despite what the network calls itself on-air. (This has been discussed here in the past.)


 * Keeping the use of television-related jargon, acronyms, and abbreviations to a minimum, and replacing such instances with plain English (such as my preferred "second digital subchannel" instead of "DT2")) results in a better-looking, more encyclopedic article. And we should always assume that folks with no knowledge of the broadcasting industry can/will be reading at any given moment.


 * There is also no need to over-expand with facts, like your changes in the introduction. All that extra stuff on locations is really unnecessary -- keep it simple.


 * As I've been arguing with the stubborn TV9 for weeks over at WGN-TV, the word the should not be capitalized when within a sentence . This is basic grammar and can be found in any style guide.


 * The article was fine as it was before you chose to rewrite it. There was no need to fix what wasn't broken.  Rollosmokes 08:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

HD descript in infobox - not intended to be redudancies
I was just simply adding HDTV descriptions in infoboxes reasonably. It was not intended in any way to be what you call "redundant and unneccessary" but it was done for simpler reasons in some cases. Take for instance: some folks don't feel like having to scroll down the TV station articles to look for the HDTV description (mostly in local news sections of the article), so the infobox link simplifies it as well. Other TV station articles for other cities have this as well, so it doesn't make much difference on redundancy regardless. GETONERD84 09:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that there is already a link to Digital television next to where you placed you HDTV link makes it redundant. Hence, it really shouldn't be there.  Rollosmokes 09:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

''Addendum: Please stop adding this redundancy. However, if you feel so strongly about it being in the articles, then propose it in the Television Stations WikiProject'' I feel strongly about it being in the articles is to differentiate between a digital station carrying HDTV and an ordinary digital tv channel. It is proposed in the WP:TVS, so its done. GETONERD84 10:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WNYW on the Upper East Side
I'm a little confused ... how come you don't think it's important to say that WNYW's studios are on the Upper East Side? I figured that someone reading that article is more likely to know where the Upper East Side is rather than Yorkville, so that's why I put that in there. Blueboy96 02:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speaking as a native, lifelong New Yorker, and someone who worked in the area for five years, it is very accurate to put Yorkville in the article (despite what you may think). The name Yorkville existed before the whole area was given the blanket name of Upper East Side.  Only non-natives would refer to it only as U.E.S., but we still use the name Yorkville around here.  Besides, if Yorkville didn't exist legitimately, there wouldn't be a Wikipedia article on it, right?  Rollosmokes 08:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Morning Columbus
Mr. Rollosmokes, I wrote the entry to WSYX-TV Columbus, listing the show "Good Morning Columbus," and just because the show was not a news show, it was still one of WSYX-TV's most popular locally-produced shows. I note in other TV station articles (please see WAFB-TV, Baton Rouge; WAVY-TV, Norfolk; and WCPO-TV, Cincinnati, and many others), THEIR past popular locally-produced programs were listed under their history tabs (if you like, I will find them all in Wikipedia and name them). Even the mighty, unbeatable, unstoppable, unchallengeable WBNS-TV has the popular "Flippo The Clown" and "Fritz The Night Owl" listed on their HISTORY page. I also note other stations around the country, include their non-news shows, both past and present, under the tab "Programming." Since Good Morning Columbus was not a news show (as both you and I have noted), I have created a new "Former Local Programming" tab under WSYX-TV for one of Channel SIX'S most popular shows. I believe that to be fair and logical.

And one other thing.. You are wrong sir.. Channel 6 was INDEED WSYX-TV when "Good Morning Columbus" was on the air. How do I know? I co-hosted the show, and I have a old business card in my hand right now that has the logo 6WSYX with "Spirit Of Ohio" underneath it. The name on the card is Calvin Sneed, and underneath that are the words: Good Morning Columbus. If you send me your email address, I will scan my old business card and send it to you.

I also resent the "trivia" reference, as you relate it to "Good Morning Columbus." I do not consider the television show I was paid to do, "trivial," no more than the man who played "Flippo The Clown" on WBNS-TV would consider his role in the station's history trivial.

I will gladly send you copies of the Nielsens and the Arbitrons (everybody also used the company Arbitron Data back then), to indicate the ratings of second-place "Good Morning Columbus" on WSYX-TV, versus the first-place "Sally Jessy" on WCMH-TV and the third-place "Trapper John MD" on WBNS-TV.

Back then, with the "Doug and Mona" show on WCMH-TV.. news wasn't the only thing WBNS-TV was getting beat on. I know.. I was there.

Calvin Sneed csneed@newschannel9.com

Csneed 05:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin help, again?
Codyfinke6 (contributions) has been making unhelpful edits to various television articles. For example, s/he continues to incorrectly edit WNYW to add the "What New Yorkers Watch", a newscast slogan no longer used by the station, as the meaning of the WNYW call letters. And, s/he also added a useless redirect to "Jennifer Lopez (meteorologist)" to the Weather Channel entry.

I have asked him/her to refrain from making unconstructive edits, and to no avail. Could you please intervene? Rollosmokes 02:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Rollo!
 * I'm not really seeing any vandalism here. The information about the call sign meaning is incorrect (it's obvious the slogan was created to go with the call sign, not vice versa, but it would be good to have a reference for that, even though it seems obvious to us). It's also not clear to me that WNYW doesn't use the slogan anymore: it still appears on their website (in the title of the page!). As a life-long NYC resident (and viewer of WNYW) you probably have a better idea than me of what the station's slogans are, but let's make sure everything in the article can be verified before we jump into an edit dispute. You've left two vandalism warnings for this user; where is the actual vandalism? Inserting false information can be considered vandalism, but I haven't seen anything indicating it's really truly false. Firsfron of Ronchester  20:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should have clarified that WNYW rarely uses the "What New Yorkers Watch" slogan on-air these days, especially since the Fox news Channel-like rebranding. I can't really stand to watch their product, but I saw enough of it to know how its being used -- or more accurately, not being used.  I did leave a comment for Codyfinke6 for verification, but s/he never responds to any messages.
 * Also, Codyfinke6 has been repeatedly and inaccurately alterating WABC-TV by adding the incorrect branding for its newscasts ("ABC 7 Eyewitness News" instead of the correct "Channel 7 Eyewitness News"). What he/she really needs to do is start commenting on their talk page.  Rollosmokes 03:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it has become a disturbance at this point. According to his/her contributions list, this user has never edited a talk page, and despite repeated attempts to contact him/her, all efforts have failed, yet the editor continues to repeatedly insert this information. Firsfron of Ronchester  09:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Minor" edits
Rollo, I noticed that you're still misusing the "minor edit" checkbox (often without including edit summaries). Once again, I'll direct your attention to the Help:Minor edit page (which explains when it's appropriate to tick the box). Thank you! —David Levy 04:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Metromedia changes
About a month ago, I tried to cleanup the Metromedia page by seperating the article in brackets. The brackets were based on decades. This was done in hopes of making the article easier to read/follow. Unfortunately, you took great offense to this, and completely reverted things back to the way you saw fit. And to make matters worse, you practically did this without consulting with me first to fully explain your rationale. You did virtually, the same thing with my edits of the Soul Train page. In my point-of-view, it's really pity and self-serving to be brutally honest. TMC1982 8:46 p.m., 13 August 2007 (2007)


 * My reasons for making the revertion were summed up in the edit summary: There is really no reason why the article should be sub-sectioned in that manner. There isn't enough text to warrant separate sub-headings based on decade.  When and if the article is expanded to a manner similar to, for example Westinghouse Broadcasting, then I'll agree with you.  But not with the Metromedia article in its current form.  I noticed you did the same thing with WDCA, and I changed that back also.


 * This is stricly a professional critique of your work. To quote Jermaine Jackson, don't take it personal.  Rollosmokes 04:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Smile!


WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. -WarthogDemon 07:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

W3XWT/WTTG
Actually, WTTG being the former W3XWT is correct. You can find the confirmation here. I reverted the WTTG back, as again it is correct. Take Care and Have a Good Weekend.... NeutralHomer T:C 21:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Minor" edits II
Once again, I ask that you please read Help:Minor edit and refrain from ticking the "minor" checkbox unless your edit meets the criteria outlined on that page. Thank you. —David Levy 08:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You continue to label major edits "minor." Are you even reading these messages?  Some sort of acknowledgment would be nice.  —David Levy 16:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have been reading these messages. And to be honest, I feel that you're nitpicking at me for what may be minor things.  Thus, I've ignored them intentionally until now.  Somehow, I believe that you are targeting me alone, and no one else.
 * Please explain this: how is an edit "major" when I changed a handful or words, or simply reverted some vandalism? There are other more important issues to deal with, so deal with those.  When I add some questionable content, then complain to me.  Rollosmokes 17:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not singling you out. I just keep noticing your "minor" edits on my watchlist and finding that many of them do not meet our definition.  To quote that page, "a minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."  And yet, you've continually reverted other users' good-faith (albeit sometimes ill-advised) changes via edits that you've deemed "minor."
 * Note that I'm not complaining about the edits themselves. I'm simply requesting that you stop mislabeling them.  This is not nitpicking on my part.  To once again quote Help:Minor edit, "the distinction between major and minor edits is significant because editors may choose to ignore minor edits when reviewing recent changes; logged-in users might even set their preferences to not display them.  If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please, do not mark it as minor."
 * So again, I ask that you kindly stop labeling your edits "minor" unless they actually are. Thank you.  —David Levy 17:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WGN-TV (again)
Once again, I have tried to correct longstanding problems at WGN-TV regarding punctuation, grammar, and redundancy. However, TV9 has continued to revert any and all changes back to his/her preferred version rather than acknowledge the corrections. TV9 has also used IP addresses "163.192.21.44" and "163.192.21.43" -- both of which are registered to the Tribune Company -- and "144.74.1.134" (registered to a Chicago hospital) to make similar edits to both mine, and others', work on the WGN-TV page. In the past, I have tried to reason with this user and it has been to no avail. TV9 and his/her sockpuppet IPs are clearly in WP:OWN and WP:POINT territory. Rollosmokes 07:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Rollo! Thanks for your note. Since "The" is part of the title, it should really be capitalized. See, for example, Wikipedia's article on The Ring ("The success of The Ring opened the way...") and Featured Articles The Lord of the Rings ("Along with Tolkien's other writings, The Lord of the Rings has been subjected to...") and The West Wing ("In total, The West Wing won two Golden Globe Awards..."). Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  10:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Westinghouse Broadcasting
Hi. Why did you feel that my recent edits were redundant or unnecessary? Thanks.JTRH 12:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's why I changed what I did, the way I did:
 * Paragraph beginning "Throughout its history...": The Charlotte station's official calls were WPCQ-TV, not simply WPCQ, and Charlotte was not a top-30 market in the early 1980's when Group W owned the station.
 * Paragraph beginning "Westinghouse's television stations...": It isn't clear in discussing WPCQ's competitive difficulties if the article mentions that the other two Charlotte network affiliates and the NBC affiliates in neighboring markets were on VHF, but not that WPCQ was on UHF. The sentence about the sale of WPCQ was inserted to account for the fact that the station isn't mentioned later in the body of the article.
 * Paragraph beginning "A short time later...": The sentence as I rewrote it is shorter and clearer.
 * Paragraph beginning "The former Westinghouse...": The sentence as I rewrote it is more accurate. A radio station does not "shut down" when it changes formats or call letters.
 * Paragraph beginning "A few of the fomer Westinghouse..." The sentence as I rewrote it is clearer and no longer redundant.
 * I'm not going to re-revert your changes (yet), but I wanted to explain my reasoning. JTRH 16:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mostly all of it was redundant. First off, there was too much WPCQ stuff that was irrelevant to the article (that stuff belongs in WCNC-TV).  Secondly, the words, phrases, and sentences you changed did not have to be altered because it changed the tone of the paragraph.  The text was not broken.  It was fine as it was.  Rollosmokes 05:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael Evans (journalist) and Rebecca Williams

 * You tagged the pages Michael Evans (journalist) and Rebecca Williams as, but they look sensible to me. If they are sensible but untrue, that is not the same as being nonsense. Please why did you want them to be deleted? Anthony Appleyard 05:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The reasons are very simple: these people do not exist. The authors of these articles wrote complete fantasies.  As someone who follows the television industry, and contributes to many TV-related articles here, I can tell you this for a fact.  If you don't believe me, do your own research.  It's surprising that these articles weren't deleted long ago.  The CSD tags need to be replaced.  Rollosmokes 05:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

CarloPlyr440
The guy went on another spree after being blocked for bad image uploads ... he's blocked for a week now. Oh, and galleries ARE allowed, as I understand it--just as long as the images in them all have valid fair-use claims. Blueboy96 22:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WNBC
In regards to threat to have me blocked from editing the WNBC-TV page, you do not impress me one bit! It is not vandalism to include verifiable facts. And, I will continue to add factual edits as I see fit, whether you like it or not!!!WUERVZEL 08:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Listen here, pal -- if your fact are, indeed, "verifiable", provide links to them. You have provided nothing, and other Wikipedia articles do not count. And there's a crazy little thing called "libel", which may get the entire Wiki organisation in trouble. The WNBC article is also not the place to post such material. We have a set of rules here that each and every editor must follow. Continue to do these edits contrary to Wiki rules and you will be blocked. -- azumanga 16:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

New York City Meetup
The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there! --Pharos 20:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Drake Hogestyn Page
You obviously have a lack of familiarity with Drake and his John Black character along with certain decisions by the Soap Project. Please do not continue to edit the page without discussing it first. Example: "killed off" ~ there's a reason for the quote marks because the show has a 40 year reputation of never killing off a living actor and the show has not officially confirmed Drake's exit. Your other edits are not necessary or not within the Soap project. Let's talk before you do anything again. Okay??CelticGreen 03:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you aren't as familiar with Wiki as you claim. Nor do you understand the concept of working together.  Sorry, but you aren't completely right and you are not an editor who knows how to play well with others. If you want to leave me a reply, do it here.CelticGreen 12:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Drake Hogestyn
First, hello again. Second, I'd like your assistance in yet another dispute, this time regarding Drake Hogestyn, aka "John Black" from Days of Our Lives. I made some corrections and removed some redundant links, but CelticGreen continues to revert back. I have commented and explained my changes on his talk page, and he removed my comments, labeling the discussion as "irrelevant". He/she has accused me of knowing nothing about the character, and even less about being a Wikipedia editor. Please assist? Rollosmokes 06:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Rollo,
 * Thank you for your note. Clearly you are correct in adding italics to the name of the series, and removing redundant wikilinks. I don't know exactly why that was reverted, but I'll discuss it with the other user. You know, I don't know anything about soap operas, and nothing about this particular actor. It looks like you are close to WP:3RR. Don't keep reverting; we'll work something out.  Firsfron of Ronchester  06:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know I'm treading water here, my bad. As always, thanks for helping.  Rollosmokes 06:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem; thank you for helping me out here. Celtic looks reasonable, and it looks like just a misunderstanding over Manual of Style issues. As long as the edit war (over italics and stuff!) ceases, I think we all can work out a compromise that will work for everyone. Firsfron of Ronchester  06:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it WASN'T reverted. Check the last version before he willy nilly made reverts.  It looked a hell of a lot better yesterday morning after I spent nearly an hour rewording the article, removing the trivia section ~ now tagged because trivia sections are not allowed ~ and putting tags explaining why things were done.  Have a great time ruining the page.  It's all yours now but make sure to add citations and remove the trivia section and try talking to an editor (personal attack removed by Firsfron) CelticGreen 21:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I can see why there is a problem. Rollosmokes, you do appear to feel you own the page and don't know everything there is to know.  Did you know "soaps" are no longer officially called "soaps"?  They are now "daytime drama."  NBC and Sony DO co-own Days.  You can find that information out by going to Sony's site.  You are very aggressive toward people in your edit summaries and your need to be right is ruining a perfectly started article.  The MOS has some guidelines that are, guidelines.  I'm not understanding why you feel an overcompelling need to have the article your way or no one else's, but I tried to compromise both editors versions, yet you seem to only want your version.  Why is that? IrishLass0128 16:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied to your aggressive statement on my talk page there rather than here. You may see it here.IrishLass0128 17:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the statement was aggressive, and the comments about "petty" and "do your homework" were unneeded (uncivil and far too personal). What the article needs right now are some good, reliable citations. I think Rollo is good at providing these, and I hope he will. This article started out as a mess, but it doesn't have to continue to be. With Irishlass' recent changes and Rollosmokes' additions, it has the potential to be a great article. But all these accusations need to stop for real progress to be made. Firsfron of Ronchester  21:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And therein lies the problem: IrishLass has made some good additions, and has provided verification on the baseball and Soap Opera Digest awards stuff. But at the same time, (s)he continues to negate my stylistic and grammatical corrections.  If there's anyone guilty of an ownership claim, it's not me, but IrishLass.  Rollosmokes 17:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Check your links
You had some links that linked to disambiguous pages or with one sentence that took you to another page. Please watch your links. IrishLass0128 16:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

2nd Warning
Your continued multiple incidents of incivility have been reported to additional admins.IrishLass0128 17:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Show me these "multiple incidents of incivility", cause I only know of one (and I feel it isn't incivility). Until then, leave me alone and let this mess play itself out.  Rollosmokes 17:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You can view the report on you here. There are multiple examples of your statements that you will not assume good faith, that you will not "take back" your insults that Fisfron agreed were incivility, your rude and aggressive comments on my page.  A number of examples exists, feel free to review them.  As it stands, the Drake Hogestyn page is locked from editing.  Hopefully, calmer heads will prevail once it is unlocked. IrishLass0128 18:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

WPIX and WWOR-TV logo pictures
alrighty. i'm not trying to be defiant or hard-to-work with... i just thought the logos were valid, that's all. :) RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Since there are several other pages that have logo galleries, I was thinking on re-adding the galleries to WPIX and WWOR, but only IF they meet the standards you listed on my talk page. If those requirements were met, would you object to those galleries being listed? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 02:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you mean well, but we've had this still unresolved problem regarding fair-use images for nearly a year. And, from a stylistic standpoint, there doesn't need to be so many logos -- I'll reiterate again, you don't need to see the same thing five different times (like the logos you added to KABC-TV, most of which have to go).  It's not really my standards, but Wikipedia's, that have to be adhered to.  Rollosmokes 06:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do mean well. I'm just trying to keep within the rules while showing information on the stations' respective logos through history. As well, i'd like to help resolve whatever problems there are. :) RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Evans (journalist)‎
Hi, thanks for your message regarding the Michael Evans (journalist)‎ article. The reason I removed the tag is that the speedy criteria specifically says it does not include hoaxes. If this person does not exist then I would strongly suggest using either proposed deletion or AFD. Davewild (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

WNYW-TV 'Vandalism'
You recently informed me that I vandalized the WNYW-TV article and threatened to block me from editing. I tell you this, I did NOT vandalize said article, I wrote in the call sign meanings. I live in New York City and happen to know WNYW-TV is advertised as What New Yorkers Watch. On another note, the previously mentioned statement is not mallicious and certainly not defacing/desctruction of the website, therefore cannot be defined as vandalism. Vandalism is defined by Websters Dictionary as, "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property." I'd appreciate you to think before you declare someone's contribution to be wrong before administering the consequenses. Mmurawinski 21:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)