User talk:Bryankfowler1051

November 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page WVWF has been reverted. Your edit here to WVWF was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/1051TheWolfRadio/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Bryankfowler1051, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to WVWF have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hello, Bryankfowler1051. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page WBWR, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.


 * Please note as well that you are not permitted to remove content from our articles without explaining why. You may post to the talk page of a radio station's article to discuss the reasons why some content should potentially be removed from articles, but especially when you have a direct conflict of interest with regard to the topic, it is not your prerogative to simply remove it yourself without explaining why there's a problem with it. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

WVWF
Please read our conflict of interest rules. It's not your prerogative to decide or dictate what the Wikipedia article is or is not allowed to say — Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public relations database, and you get no special privilege to control the article's content. You don't get to tell us what we are or are not allowed to write about the station — our rules decide what information stays or goes, our rules decide what sources we are or aren't allowed to use, and our rules decide whether the article gets deleted or not. If there's any information that is incorrect, then you can post to the article's talk page to request a correction — but what we write about the station is not the station's decision to make, so we are not going to bury anything that's verifiably true, and we are not going to delete the article outright. Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The only communication breakdown on this is in your court. Wikipedia does not exist as a venue for you (or anybody else with a direct affiliation with the station) to write about yourselves, or to pick and choose which information you want publicized and which information you want hidden — it is a venue for summarizing what other sources who are independent of the station have written or published about it. Anything we can glean from newspaper or magazine reportage about the station is fair game for the article, anything in the station's FCC license is fair game for the article, and on and so forth — and yes, other radio station articles regularly do have that same type of information added to their articles if it's sourceable and relevant. Radio stations that change ownership have the purchase price added to the article all the time if that information was reported in the sale's media coverage, and radio stations have the names of individual owners added to the article all the time if it's known. The only time either of those pieces of information would ever not be included in a radio station's Wikipedia article is if we can't find any reliable sources to verify them — if sources exist to support the information, then it does go in the article.
 * The article also does not say that WVWF is a simulcast; it says that WBWR began simulcasting WVWF's programming in February 2018, which is not the same thing as saying that WVWF is itself a simulcast. And firstly, the article cites a reliable source for that; and secondly, you did not dispute that information in WBWR's separate article when you edited it. Since WBWR seems to have flipped back to an originator of its own programming again since February 2018, we'd be happy to update the article if a reliable source for the new format is shown — for example, what date did it relaunch as The Bear on? — but we need to see sources, and won't bury properly sourced prior history.
 * Again, we do not base the article on what you say about the station; we base the article on what reliable sources (media coverage, the FCC, etc.) say about the station. If they report purchase prices, then that is public information which is fair game for our article, and not "private" information that you have a right to suppress. If they report the actual name of the owner of the company, then that is public information which is fair game for our article, and not "private" information that you have a right to suppress. If they report that WBWR was flipped to a simulcast of WVWF in February 2018, then that information is fair game for our article and all you need to do is provide a source for when it flipped back to The Bear again so that we can add the fact that it flipped back to The Bear. The article's job is to be an encyclopedia article, not a PR profile written by the station's own marketing department.
 * So, again: if you can provide a proper source for when WBWR relaunched as The Bear, then you can post it to Talk:WBWR so that we can update the article accordingly. If there's any information in either article which is incorrect, then you're free to post to the article's talk pages to provide reliable sources that verify any desired corrections. But you're not at liberty to decide what is or isn't "private" information — if it's been reported by the stations' media coverage and/or in the FCC filings themselves, then it's public information that's fair game for our article whether you like it or not, and we're not going to suppress verified and reliably sourced historical information just because things have now changed. We'll happily add the new information, but will not erase what was previously true just because it isn't still true — the article's job is to cover the station's entire history, not just its current presentation. And any further discussion about this is to go on the talk pages of the articles — Talk:WBWR and/or Talk:WVWF — and not on my own personal talk page. If you ever post so much as a comma to my personal talk page again, I'm reporting you to WP:ANI for being disruptive. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)