User talk:CFIF/Archive 3

Displaced Brit is back
And he's decided to file a nice little RfC against me. CFIF ☎ 02:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've added an "outside view". — Mets 501  (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've endorsed Mets' outside view. It seems pretty accurate to me. Thanks for letting me know about this RFC. I just wish D.B. could just drop it; it's been days since you've apologised. I don't feel there was any need for continued conflict. Best wishes, -- Firsfron of Ronchester 03:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I left an ouside view on the comment page. I hope I wasn't too harsh on you mentioning that you seemed to have a bit of a history of making snap judgements, but I felt that I did have to take into account Displaced Brit's accusations in order to give a fair assessment looking at both sides. Sadly, I don't feel that he will take what Mets501 and Firsfron had to say seriously, given what he has said about them. Hopefully we can get an apology from him out of the whole mess. TV Newser 04:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I posted an outside view on the comment request page. I did say you were a bit opinionated and maybe a bit pigheaded, and I don't feel as if I attacked you, since we can all get a tad emotional in arguments. I did say I felt that Displaced Brit was in the wrong, but you may have egged him on a bit. I hope there are no hard feelings, but I tried to give a dispassionate view of the situation. CEIF © 18:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

My name and your name
Hi. I noticed today when I was editing the Shaker Heights, Ohio article that we have very similar names, I am CEIF and you are CFIF. I explain on my user page that I mean "Common Era is our future" by it. I hope this doesn't cause anyone any confusion. CEIF 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, shouldn't cause too much confusion. --CFIF ☎ 18:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK that is good to hear. I just wanted to inform you just in case it was a problem. Now how did you do the neat thing with your signature? CEIF 18:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Copy this code and go to my preferences and find the signature preference CEIF ☎ (without the nowiki) --CFIF ☎ 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! CEIF © 14:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your sockpuppet accusation!
Why have you accused me of being a sockpuppet? Is it because I have nominated articles for speedy deletion that you disagree with? I think you must be in violation of some Wikipedia policy for that. Lost Knob 18:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No one just comes on and nominates articles for deletion out of the blue. --CFIF ☎ 19:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey CFIF,
 * Both and  have made edits to The Sweeney, a British TV series from the 1970s. D.B.'s very first edit was an upload of an image for our article on The Sweeney. L.K.'s fourth edit to Wikipedia was an upload of a Sweeney image. Both have added content to the article since then as well, and even though both users are quite new to Wikipedia, both have quickly become involved in list deletions on AFD, and now both are certifying claims against you on WP:RfC. My question to you is, have you been involved in Sweeney-related deletions on Wikipedia? Something that would anger the entire Sweeney Wikipedia community?-- Firsfron of Ronchester  21:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've actually never heard of The Sweeney. --CFIF ☎ 21:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My deletions were not "out of the blue" they were articles found using the "random article" feature which I felt deleted. As for The Sweeney, it was one of the most popular television programmes on televison in the UK and was also quite popular in Australia. Perhaps you should look at Ownership of articles again along with Assume good faith. I assumed good faith until I learned of your past behaviour on the Requests for comment/CFIF page. I shall be taking a time out, and I suggest you should do the same. Lost Knob 22:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC
The RfC filed with regards to you was uncertified after more than 48 hours, and so I have deleted it. -Splash - tk 14:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Where do you live?
Where do you live? --Poinana9284728 20:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Poinana9284728

Nokomis, Florida. --CFIF ☎ 20:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

They're baaaaack...
1) Looks like we have another sockpuppet of Spotteddogsdotorg in our midst...this time he's using the more formal handle of "Mr. Scott Brown". I just cleaned up a small mess he left at KTTV, so be on the lookout.  Rollosmokes 16:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

2) There could be another edit war brewing at Kaiser Broadcasting, involving yours truly and WIKISCRIPPS 07, whom apparently has complete Coolkatt-like disregard for someone else's ability to expand on and improve articles. Comments?  Rollosmokes 18:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I brought this Mr. Scott Brown to the attention of Splash here after I did a little sleuthing and I have the left the full details of what I found on Splash's talk page where I note that I stronly feel that Brown appears to be ringleader of the Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppet ring. I also left a sockpuppet notice on Brown's page and also found some people who were vandalizing it, after apparently there was a call for vandalism on a website . Splash has set the wheels in motion to get Brown's user page rants deleted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mr. Scott Brown. It appears that this was all caused by a newscast tape trade that went bad and Brown attempting to use Wikipedia to get revenge, something that Brown has attempted to do with the content that is currently on his user page. I'll be keeping an eye on the situation. TV Newser 04:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit of a suggestion
CFIF, you make some good edits, but you seem to fly off the handle a bit when it comes to article deletions, as you seem to call anyone who nominates an article that you have created or worked on a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg and basically say the evidence is the fact they nominated the article, since I read it as a major violation of [{WP:AGF]]. I mentioned a lot of this on the comments page, since deleted. You can't really go biting the head off of newbies or anyone who disagrees with you. I have mentioned that I have discovered what may be the source for the sockpuppet and his reasons for making attacks, but looking at User:WEVZ I don't think there is enough evidence for your accusations and I wonder if you are doing this because you really want to keep the articles. You can't go around violating [{WP:AGF]] all the time without clear evidence. Perhaps if you stop and really think before you act, you could possibly avoid a lot of conflict with others, something that you seem to have done a lot of in the past. For the record, I voted to delete Paul Dellegatto as I feel the nomination was in good faith and meets the deletion standards. TV Newser 21:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RfA/Consumed Crustacean
Thanky for your support. All's well that's sucessful, and etc., and other nonsense. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Lost Knob
Hi CFIF,

Mackensen's results on the CheckUser on this user came back negative. This user is not D.B. I just thought you'd want to know. Happy editing! :) Firsfron of Ronchester  16:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Teke's RfA thanks
Thank you for your support of my RfA, which has passed with a final tally of 76/1/1. With this overwhelming show of support and approval I am honored to serve Wikipedia in the task charged to me and as outlined in my nomination. Happy editing to you! Teke ( talk ) 17:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet tags
Hey C, You have recently added a sockpuppet tag to user:Mr. Scott Brown's userpage. Aside from the claims of user:TV Newser, do we have any actual evidence to back it up? Newser may be a very reputable user on another web-site, but he's got under 400 edits on Wikipedia. user:Mr. Scott Brown has under 100 edits, and I'd rather not take the word of one new editor over another new editor's without proof. Since you tagged this user's account, I assume you must have access to information I don't have. Can you provide diffs, or an outside link that proves or at the least indicates this guy is a spotted dog sock, aside from speculation? Best, Firsfron of Ronchester  03:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)



Scott Brown is not only a sockpuppet ringleader, he's a complete nutcase. --CFIF ☎ 03:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the very prompt response. Sorry it took me a while to get back to you; I read thru the thread a couple of times. That link proves he is definitely not well-liked, but I don't get the "sockpuppet" connection. Well, thanks anyway. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * He created the Spotteddogsdotorg account after a sour tape trade with an nyviewer (who had a spotteddogs.org) website, and nyviewer had to shut it down due to this. Now I don't particularly care for nyviewer, but he did not make the account. --CFIF ☎ 03:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know any of the personalities over there, so I guess I just have to trust your judgement. :) Sockpuppet talk aside, I just saw the message you added to your userpage; I hope your wikistress goes down and that you'll be able to keep on editing, despite these setbacks. It is totally frustrating to see something you worked hard on get deleted, or even nominated for deletion. But such is the wiki lifestyle... (as an aside to this aside, up until a few months ago, I lived not too far from you, in St Cloud, FL (yeah, not that close, but I did drive from Naples to Tampa in January on vacation, and would have passed by/thru Nokomis...) Cheers! Firsfron of Ronchester  03:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * lol yeah...it's getting to be a major PITA, as I see almost every article I create being deleted left and right. --CFIF ☎ 04:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have a really good solution, as I'm sure you already knew. Just try to make the articles have as much claim to notability as possible, with verifyable sources, so that these spurious nominations will be clearly seen for what they are by the rest of the Wikipedia community, and will then hopefully get few delete votes. The List of MNTV affils nomination was clearly trolling, and if we can shore up any possible chinks in some of these other articles, then these nominations for deletion will ultimately fail, and whoever it is will give up. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Allow me to chime in on this, as I first marked him with the sockpuppet tag. I stumbled upon the whole mess when I was looking into Displaced Brit's claims against CFIF in his request for commets. After spending a bit of time doing a bit of investigation I had enough facts to theorize that this was in fact the same user, given behavior patterns and other evidence. I guess my tag got deleted when his inappropriate rantings were removed from his user page. I also gathered that Brown is quite unstable.
 * As for some of the articles, some may be legitimate deletes, given the current guidelines, since there really are none for local television personalities.
 * Do you have a DMA cutoff, do you use experience as a guide, or some other criteria?
 * Do you include reporters, if so who?
 * Do we really need bios of some freelancer or a fill in traffic reporter?


 * Another problem with such is that people get attached to those they see on TV in some very strange ways and some people may feel overly attached to someone they see on the news daily and feel that they should include their bio, with the justification seeming to be if they are on TV they must be notable. Seeing people on TV every day can do strange things to people.


 * Without any consistent policy, some articles will be deleted, some will be kept, and we can bet that some of the articles that should be deleted are kept and vise versa. A true review of who is actually notable is clearly needed. TV Newser 05:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Roy Leep
CFIF, I hate to say it but, your comment on Articles for deletion/Roy Leep saying "article put up for deletion ONLY for the purpose of trolling and stalking. Certain users have been following me and deleting every single article that I have worked on" makes you seem a bit parinoid. There is no great overarching conspiracy against you and quite franky you sound like Nixon assembling his enemies list True, I think that Displaced Brit is out to get revenge on you, but he was blocked. Ironically, the nomination of Black Almanac was a valid one, despite being done out of spite, since the program isn't notable. I frankly feel your behavior has a lot to do with why people are doing this, as you act rather abrutply with them and are quick to make sockpuppet allegations if they want to get rid of "your" articles (please see WP:OWN, WP:AGF, WP:NAM, WP:CIV, WP:NPOV). Quite frankly, if a user creates one unnoteworhy article, it would stand to reason that they may have created another. Perhaps you should really review the content you are adding and see if the subjects do in fact meet the criteria for inculsion on Wikipedia (see: WP:NOT, WP:N). Perhaps you need a time out to stop and think. TV Newser 16:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Big hug!
Relax. Take a deep breath. The more active you are in creating articles, the more arguments you're bound to get involved in. I just lost an argument over keeping a whole host of articles that ended up all being deleted; it it really annoying. Maybe down the line, you can petition for undeletion. In the meantime: *HUG* -Umdunno 17:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC) (From your friends at Esperanza.)


 * Thanks! That really helps to know that someone gives a damn. --CFIF ☎ 17:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why have you accused me of being a sockpuppet?
From what I read on your talk page it appears you seem to have done this to several other people who have called for articles to be deleted which you have had a hand in. I am new here, but I took the time to read the guidelines and when I hit "Random article" and found the Don Bell (reporter) article, it seemed to be a rather unremarkable person, so I looked into if it met the standards of inclusion. In my opinion it did not, so I felt it should have been a speedy delete. When that failed, I still feel it should be deleted. From what I have read, Wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone and the beauty of it is that in theory if someone finds an article they feel isn't up to the established standards, it can be removed. This is what I did. I found out after I put it up for deletion that it was done before, and apparently you employed the same tactics to keep the article. Is your purpose to drive newbies off of Wikipedia or something, or are you just and EDP? RMP 2584 18:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In defense of myself
In defense of myself, I found the Don Bell (reporter) article when I hit "Random article" and felt that [[Don Bell (reporter) didn't meet the inclusion criteria. When it wasn't I tried the next thing, which was the nomination. After I added it, I noticed that it had been nominated before, so I followed the instructions to nominate it again. It appears that the first nomination was not a true discussion, as CFIF accused the nominator of being a sockpuppet. From what I read on CFIF's talk page, he has a history of doing this to other people in order to keep his articles, despite the fact that Wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone! Isn't the whole point of the exersise that if a user finds an article that doesn't meet the established standards, they can try to obtain a consensus by having it deleted? Is CFIF's goal on Wikipedia to make it an elite clique where his articles are never deleted or to just attack the newbies?

As for my addition of Plantation (Maine) to all the Maine plantations, I not only created the Plantation (Maine) article, something that was needed, I went and added a relevant link to all of the articles, including at least one that was impoperly linked to Plantation. If this is the level of aggravation that is going to be typical of Wikipedia, then I don't think I want to be a part of it. I am definitely not this EDP named Scott Brown. Just because someone nominates some delete worthy TV reporter doesn't mean that they are part of some greater conspiracy. If anything I would say that you are all the EDPs for acting in this way. You people took something that was fun and turned it into some sort of sick and disturbed schoolyard scenario. On the schoolyard people like you had a name - bullies, who had their own sick and twisted pathology behind their behavior. And guess what? You people are acting the same way. You all would never make it as cops, since you would most likely arrest anyone without cause and do not seem to understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty - something that Wikipeida incoporates in its assume good fatih doctrine. God, do you people have lives or are you all sitting at home all day dreaming up conspiracy theorys? I am not going to waste my time with this, since judging by what you have written you are all seemingly suffering from some degree of schizophrenia with unseen people out to get you or things you think you own. I have dealt with enough EDPs in my life to realize it is a loosing and fustrating battle to reason with them. This isn't what I signed up for, so you win - I QUIT! RMP 2584 19:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #4
The September issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999
This case is now closed and the result has been published at the link above.


 * CoolKatt is banned for one year from articles which relate to US television stations. He may continue to comment on talk pages.
 * CoolKatt is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts. After the expiration of any ban imposed by this decision that ban may be re-imposed should he resume tendentious or disruptive editing. All bans are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999.
 * All of CoolKatt's subpages that do not comply with User page shall be deleted.
 * Should CoolKatt violate any ban imposed on him by this decision he may be blocked for an appropriate period. All blocks are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 17:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion re:TV people
I am wondering if a station by station bio page would be better for these debatably notable people. For example you could create a page with all the anchors and reporter for WTVT and call it WTVT news team or something. It may save you, me and everybody a lot of aggravation and maybe it will help calm things down between you and others. TV Newser 21:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got something for ya!
Articles for deletion/WTVT...please close it if someone else hasn't. I'm starting to wonder if this is a Displaced Brit/Spotteddogsdotorg sock....--CFIF ☎ 22:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone already closed it, but I appreciate the heads up. This user has only three edits; no one participates in AFD on their very first edit, frankly, and this user additionally got the entire tagging-and-listing process correct on his very first edit. Given the bolded message on your user page about you being tired of people deleting your articles, your contributions to TV articles, and your naming your home market on your userpage, it's clear this is a sock of someone trying to harass you. As I have a very low tolerance for people harassing other editors, I've blocked the user as a sock, though I cannot judge which account he is a sock of. Could also be an unrelated troll, technically. Either way, it's an account whose only purpose is trouble. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester  23:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, take a look at who claims to be Roy Leep. I seriously doubt it is him, it seems like another sock. --CFIF ☎ 23:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what to make of user:Roy Leep. If he is a sock, he will eventually hang himself. If he's not, he won't be bothering you. I've deleted D.B.'s latest personal attack against you. There was nothing in that rant that contributed anything to your RFC: there wasn't a single diff provided, and it was full of slurs, namecalling, etc. Splash has already indefinitely blocked him, or I would have done so. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester  03:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. T
Thanks for fixing my Talk page. We need to do something about this nutball if it hasn't been done already. -TPIRFanSteve 14:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Your RFC
I've speedied Requests for comment/CFIF per CSD:G5 and G3 as it appears to have been created by a banned user who is being vexatious. Have a nice day. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the welcome. I have kept meaning to register as a user but just never did it until today. Catch you later. Noodles the Clown 15:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome note and I'll be glad to help if I can. Cheers! TBTA 04:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Continuing the current theme of your talk page, I've just noticed the shiny new thing on my userpage. (I'm slow like that.) Thank you! -Splash - tk 13:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. :) --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. A Lamp 01:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This guy is truly a problem though. He has a major sockpuppet ring, and he truly is crazy. Just ask if you want more. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 02:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Citrus County Fl Seal.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Citrus County Fl Seal.png. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "Public domain", "Free license", and "Fair use" sections of Image copyright tags.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 00:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey CFIF
Just so you know, I removed a personal attack from your talk page. User claimed to be your old friend D.B., but coulda been some other disgruntled user. You can still read the text in the history, but, really, why bother? Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  07:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFI for User:Donotsayno
There is a hell of a backlog at WP:RFI on which I have begun to work. I thought you may be interested that I have filed a sockpuppet abuse accusation against Donotsayno: Suspected sock puppets/Donotsayno. His behaviour is very close to a user who has now been blocked twice for uploading large numbers of unsourced images.--Konstable 10:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It`s very possible that they could be socks. Good find. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 12:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

CFIF impostor
user:Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh got there first. Sorry I was slow on the draw, there, but I blocked the IP that left that message. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester  00:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your vandalism of WTSP News team and WTVT News team
Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to WTSP News team. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Borox 17:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to WTVT News team. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Borox 17:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC) See my comments on User talk:Borox. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please also see WP:OWN Borox 17:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we come to some agreement? I am just following established precedent, since there are a few other pages like those I created. I ignored your blatant personal attacks saying "revert idiotic move".  I took a few days break and I hope you can be reasonable instead of calling people idiots. It looks like you seem to alienate a lot of people and you really need to calm down. Borox 00:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But your move was extremely inappropriate, putting the entire history of the Dick Fletcher article into this. Fletcher and Dellegatto need seperate articles, and a one sentence intro similar to the other anchors, with a link to the article, would suffice.

Create a seperate article instead of moving an existing article. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 00:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

And the newscasts don't really need their own article, it was fine in the article. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 00:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

is a sock and also a blocked one. -Splash - tk 10:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WTVT news team/WTSP news team
Could you move them back to Paul Dellegatto and Dick Fletcher respectively? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 11:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done and done. While fixing double redirects, I found he also tricked an admin into deleting Roy Leep  again!  That's also fixed.  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Another IP address to add to your list
Add to your list (assuming you have one) for this edit. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The latest alleged sockpuppetry
First off I have to say that I am tired of this whole sockpuppet nonsense. I looked at the latest suspected Spotteddogsdotorg sockpuppets, mainly due to the message left by Lost Knob informing me that the Roy Leep article was up for deletion again. I do not feel that Borox is a part of the ring, since he seemed to be actually adding content and my guess is that he took the two bios for the station personalties that were in existance to preserve the edit history of them. This was not the best idea, as it should have been done with a merger proposal, but it apparently escalated into an edit war and led to the sock tag/ban by Splash. I think a checkuser may be in order here.

The Lost Knob matter seems a bit more of a poser. I really don't think he matches the behavior of the Spotteddogsdotorg socks and I think his re-AFDs for Roy Leep and Paul Dellegatto are more out of spite for CFIF, due to him being tagged as a sock of Displaced Brit. For the record I voted delete for the two articles because I feel that until some sort of specific policy for local TV personalites is established, they have to meet the established notabilty guidelines. If Lost Knob is a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, he may be one of Displaced Brit, since the two seem to use British English and use it rather coherently, unlike the Scott Brown/Spotteddogsdotorg socks. Also they seem to use several colloquialisms unique to the UK and not the sort of stuff you could pick up from Monty Python re-runs. My father was stationed at RAF Lakenheath, my mother is a Mancunian, and I worked three years in the London bureau, so I spent enough time over on the other side of the pond to detect a faker. Also what strikes me is the note he left on Splash's talk page that asks for some sort of consensus be reached. The note seems to be coherent and written in good faith, unlike the mad ramblings of Scott Brown, and calls for a consensus on the whole issue of local TV personalities. Again, I think a checkuser would be in order here.

I also feel that the Scott Brown based socks seem to have vanished, along with his Yahoo group given the legal threat from the people who run tvnewstalk.net. So I am really thinking that there are several people who CFIF has really pissed off who are out to get him. I really think we do need a cooling off period here because playing investigative reporter is part of my day job and I don't want to be doing it when I am at home. Respectfully submited, TV Newser 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WPVI-TV anchors
Hey, sorry if you're already aware of these but WPVI-TV anchors was formed out of several small articles with four reporter articles turned into redirects. I was going to unmerge them but figured that's more your dept. Feel free to unmerge those articles if you want since the AFD result for them was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)